Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: Joe G.'s Tardgasm started by Tom Ames


Posted by: Tom Ames on Feb. 24 2010,12:00

Place your wagers here.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 24 2010,12:06

Well, due to the economy the refrigerator repair biz might be pretty frantic (nobody's buying new appliances), so I'm betting that he won't last longer than another 24 hours or so.

Of course, he could be lying about that refrigerator repair business too...
Posted by: Tom Ames on Feb. 24 2010,12:16

Oh my god, I have to apologize to Joe G.!

Right there on p. 452 of the Kerry Bloom review he pointed us to, it says that Centrioles are actually little turbines, with a citation to Jonathan Wells!

Wow, Joe, what can I say? I guess you really must have read and understood all those references you gave us from the January 28, 2010 edition of Nature. And they indeed support ID, completely repudiating Darwinism, just as you claimed they do. My profoundest apologies for ever doubting you.
Posted by: Louis on Feb. 24 2010,13:08

How long can his tardgasm go on? Until the pointless waste of his daddy's semen ups and dies.

Still, think happy thoughts, eh.

Louis
Posted by: keiths on Feb. 24 2010,13:20

Don't forget, Joe G. is multiply tardgasmic.  This could go on for a very long time.
Posted by: J-Dog on Feb. 24 2010,13:41

Joe will go until:
1.) The meds take effect
2.) The NEW meds take effect
3.) He comes down off what he is on
4.) Someone knocks some sense into that waste of cells inside his cranium
5.) The cops break down his door and take him away
6.) All of the above
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 24 2010,13:42

He am teh famous:

< http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0302914/ >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Alternate Names:Joe 'Little Joe' Gallien | Little Joe Gallien
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ETA:

< Piccy goodness! >
Posted by: J-Dog on Feb. 24 2010,13:47

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2010,13:42)
He am teh famous:

< http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0302914/ >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Alternate Names:Joe 'Little Joe' Gallien | Little Joe Gallien
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ETA:

< Piccy goodness! >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Richard - followed your link...

Jesus H Christ - No wonder he's PO'd this week:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
STARmeter: Down 39% in popularity this week. See why on IMDbPro.Alternate Names:Joe 'Little Joe' Gallien | Little Joe Gallien
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Maybe someone could post this picture of him:



Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 24 2010,14:30

Crosspost:


Posted by: ppb on Feb. 24 2010,14:34

Quote (keiths @ Feb. 24 2010,14:20)
Don't forget, Joe G. is multiply tardgasmic.  This could go on for a very long time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think his tardrection lasted more than 4 hours.  Perhaps he's gone to seek medical advice.
Posted by: Louis on Feb. 24 2010,14:50

Quote (ppb @ Feb. 24 2010,19:34)
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 24 2010,14:20)
Don't forget, Joe G. is multiply tardgasmic.  This could go on for a very long time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think his tardrection lasted more than 4 hours.  Perhaps he's gone to seek medical advice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tardenafil citrate overdose you suspect, Doctor?

Louis
Posted by: Ptaylor on Feb. 24 2010,15:02

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 25 2010,09:50)
Tardenafil citrate overdose you suspect, Doctor?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Either that or < Tardalafil >.

ETA - erm, sorry, medicines info is what I do for a day job
Posted by: KCdgw on Feb. 24 2010,15:27

100 quatloos he watches this thread and pops in with a tard-a-gram right after any wagered time limit.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Feb. 24 2010,15:37

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2010,14:30)
Crosspost:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not be critical of otherwise fine work, but shouldn't you have included "accumulation of genetic accidents?"
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 24 2010,15:43

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 24 2010,15:37)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2010,14:30)
Crosspost:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not be critical of otherwise fine work, but shouldn't you have included "accumulation of genetic accidents?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes.  :(
Posted by: Quack on Feb. 24 2010,16:04

Quote (keiths @ Feb. 24 2010,13:20)
Don't forget, Joe G. is multiply tardgasmic.  This could go on for a very long time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Right, as long as his coprolalia rewards him with -gasms it will continue. Just boring to watch.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Feb. 24 2010,16:57

A Joe G-spot tornado!
Posted by: bfish on Feb. 24 2010,17:02

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2010,13:43)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 24 2010,15:37)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2010,14:30)
Crosspost:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not be critical of otherwise fine work, but shouldn't you have included "accumulation of genetic accidents?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes.  :(
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think you need a panel for "ya see"

Also, I'm afraid you transposed the M and N in baraminology.

But maybe that was on purpose.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Feb. 24 2010,17:29

Richard,

 You also forgot to add
"cursing anyone who asks a question"
"cursing anyone who points to a fallacy"
"cursing anyone who counters the arguement"
"cursing anyone... well... anyone"
Posted by: fnxtr on Feb. 24 2010,17:56

Quote (Ptaylor @ Feb. 24 2010,13:02)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 25 2010,09:50)
Tardenafil citrate overdose you suspect, Doctor?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Either that or < Tardalafil >.

ETA - erm, sorry, medicines info is what I do for a day job
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really? Can you explain pharmaceutical nomenclature? Or do they just make up cool sounding names? I mean the generic names, not brand names.

That'd be a far more interesting read than the pissing contest with GI Joe.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Feb. 24 2010,19:55

Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 24 2010,18:56)
That'd be a far more interesting read than the pissing contest with GI Joe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Howabout a pissing ON Joe G contest?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Feb. 24 2010,20:49

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 24 2010,19:55)
Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 24 2010,18:56)
That'd be a far more interesting read than the pissing contest with GI Joe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Howabout a pissing ON Joe G contest?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only from the roof.  I'm not getting my stuff anywhere close to him...
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Feb. 24 2010,20:59

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 24 2010,21:49)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 24 2010,19:55)
Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 24 2010,18:56)
That'd be a far more interesting read than the pissing contest with GI Joe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Howabout a pissing ON Joe G contest?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only from the roof.  I'm not getting my stuff anywhere close to him...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can hear him now:

"Look...another talking snake!"
Posted by: dvunkannon on Feb. 24 2010,21:41

If y'all hadn't said Paul Nelson was the only YEC willing to come out and play, this wouldn't have happened. I don't think the timing was accidental.

IOW - design.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 24 2010,22:59

Sadly, I think he's spent.
Posted by: paragwinn on Feb. 24 2010,23:20

where can one witness such a phantasmagoric display? if it elicited a separate thread like this, it must be beyond the usual Joe G "cock-of-the-walk".
Posted by: Badger3k on Feb. 24 2010,23:22

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2010,22:59)
Sadly, I think he's spent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that why my monitor is blurry?  I didn't know you could send that over the internets, even if it is a series of tubes.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Feb. 24 2010,23:45

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2010,20:59)
Sadly, I think he's spent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Spent?

I think he is badly in debt!
Posted by: Louis on Feb. 25 2010,03:30

Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 24 2010,22:56)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Feb. 24 2010,13:02)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 25 2010,09:50)
Tardenafil citrate overdose you suspect, Doctor?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Either that or < Tardalafil >.

ETA - erm, sorry, medicines info is what I do for a day job
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really? Can you explain pharmaceutical nomenclature? Or do they just make up cool sounding names? I mean the generic names, not brand names.

That'd be a far more interesting read than the pissing contest with GI Joe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The only drug I've been involved with that's made it to market was named in a cross department lottery. Everyone interested sent in a suggestion and there was a prize if your name was chosen (a bottle of something). However, there are name generating methods (these were a fallback in the case I mention) because they can't use words that actually mean anything in most languages. Unfortunately I don't know precisely how the generators work, I have enough to worry about making the damn things/getting them to work etc. Usually they're referred to as "that fucking COX2-inhibitor" or something similar. ;-)

Louis
Posted by: J-Dog on Feb. 25 2010,08:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"that fucking COX2-inhibitor"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"that fucking COX2-inhibitor"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Quote (Louis @ Feb. 25 2010,03:30)
Unfortunately I don't know precisely how the generators work, I have enough to worry about making the damn things/getting them to work etc. Usually they're referred to as "that fucking COX2-inhibitor" or something similar. ;-)

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Marketing gold, my friend.  Marketing gold...
Posted by: ppb on Feb. 25 2010,08:33

Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 25 2010,09:19)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"that fucking COX2-inhibitor"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"that fucking COX2-inhibitor"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



   
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 25 2010,03:30)
Unfortunately I don't know precisely how the generators work, I have enough to worry about making the damn things/getting them to work etc. Usually they're referred to as "that fucking COX2-inhibitor" or something similar. ;-)

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Marketing gold, my friend.  Marketing gold...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Ask your doctor about that fucking COX2-inhibitor"
Posted by: Badger3k on Feb. 25 2010,09:50

Quote (ppb @ Feb. 25 2010,08:33)
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 25 2010,09:19)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"that fucking COX2-inhibitor"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"that fucking COX2-inhibitor"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



   
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 25 2010,03:30)
Unfortunately I don't know precisely how the generators work, I have enough to worry about making the damn things/getting them to work etc. Usually they're referred to as "that fucking COX2-inhibitor" or something similar. ;-)

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Marketing gold, my friend.  Marketing gold...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Ask your doctor about that fucking COX2-inhibitor"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A "fucking COX2 inhibitor" sounds like a mother-in-law with two daughters.
Posted by: Louis on Feb. 25 2010,10:31

I mentioned this marketing idea to one of the senior people in the marketing dept.

My P45*. I has it.

Louis

*P45 = UK equivalent of a pink slip. Not this kind of pink slip:



Sadly.

ETA: The lady in the photo is the senior person in marketing I mentioned it to. What a coinkydink!
Posted by: fnxtr on Feb. 25 2010,10:48

Geez. Only one thought crosses my mind when I see a woman like that.

"Sister, go home and eat something."
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 25 2010,11:07

Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 25 2010,10:48)
Geez. Only one thought crosses my mind when I see a woman like that.

"Sister, go home and eat something."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


*Insert "I've got something for her to eat" joke here*





(I'm thinking Charlston Chews)
Posted by: Doc Bill on Feb. 25 2010,11:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
*Insert "I've got something for her to eat" joke here*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



*Insert "She needs a meal, not a snack!" witty retort here.*


Ba-dum-CHING!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 25 2010,11:19

Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 25 2010,11:12)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
*Insert "I've got something for her to eat" joke here*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



*Insert "She needs a meal, not a snack!" witty retort here.*


Ba-dum-CHING!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


*insert "it looked so much bigger when your mother was eating it" retort, here*
Posted by: Louis on Feb. 25 2010,11:26

Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 25 2010,15:48)
Geez. Only one thought crosses my mind when I see a woman like that.

"Sister, go home and eat something."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As Billy Connelly said regarding underweight models

"Go on darlin', have a cheeseburger, you'll be amazed how happy it makes you!"

Good advice.

Louis
Posted by: Joe G on Feb. 25 2010,19:04

Quote (Tom Ames @ Feb. 24 2010,12:16)
Oh my god, I have to apologize to Joe G.!

Right there on p. 452 of the Kerry Bloom review he pointed us to, it says that Centrioles are actually little turbines, with a citation to Jonathan Wells!

Wow, Joe, what can I say? I guess you really must have read and understood all those references you gave us from the January 28, 2010 edition of Nature. And they indeed support ID, completely repudiating Darwinism, just as you claimed they do. My profoundest apologies for ever doubting you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gee asshole- what is your evidence that blind undirected processes can account for the specified complexity observed in living organisms?

Can you even muster a testable hypothesis or is drooling and stroking all you are good for?

IOW butt-plug what do you have besides the refusal to allow the design inference no matter what?
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Feb. 25 2010,19:09

What specified complexity would that be Joe?

Where are the specifications for any living organism?

I'll bet you typed this latest rant with one hand again, right?   ;)
Posted by: Joe G on Feb. 25 2010,19:14

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 25 2010,19:09)
What specified complexity would that be Joe?

Where are the specifications for any living organism?

I'll bet you typed this latest rant with one hand again, right?   ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I bet you mouths the words as you ype you freakin' retard.

Try reading a little Lelie Orgel and then buy a fucking vowel you moronic retard.

The specified complexity that your position cannot account for.

You assholes require a load of intelligent intervention just to get nucleotides.

And even the RNAs that are synthesized are only capable of catalyzing ione little bond.

IOW assface all you have is the refusal to allow the design inference.

All you can do is ask smirky questions because in reality you are an imbecile.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Feb. 25 2010,19:16

That's nice Joe, but where are the specifications for any living organism?
Posted by: Joe G on Feb. 25 2010,19:17

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 25 2010,19:16)
That's nice Joe, but where are the specifications for any living organism?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Look in any biology textbook you moron.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Feb. 25 2010,19:20

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 25 2010,19:17)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 25 2010,19:16)
That's nice Joe, but where are the specifications for any living organism?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Look in any biology textbook you moron.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, so you can't provide any specification, or provide the calculated value of 'CSI' for any biological object.

How can complexity be specified when there isn't any specification?
Posted by: Joe G on Feb. 25 2010,19:21

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 25 2010,19:16)
That's nice Joe, but where are the specifications for any living organism?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For example check out the peer-reviewed paper pertaining to the minimal complexity of a minimal bacteria.- < minimal genome >

You can also read about it here:

< peering into the black box >
Posted by: rhmc on Feb. 25 2010,19:22

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 25 2010,20:17)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 25 2010,19:16)
That's nice Joe, but where are the specifications for any living organism?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Look in any biology textbook you moron.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd bet even your car is a Dodge.
Posted by: Joe G on Feb. 25 2010,19:22

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 25 2010,19:20)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 25 2010,19:17)
 
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 25 2010,19:16)
That's nice Joe, but where are the specifications for any living organism?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Look in any biology textbook you moron.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, so you can't provide any specification, or provide the calculated value of 'CSI' for any biological object.

How can complexity be specified when there isn't any specification?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you refuse to look in a biology textbook and you think your ignorance refutes what I said.

You are an intellectual coward.
Posted by: Joe G on Feb. 25 2010,19:23

Quote (rhmc @ Feb. 25 2010,19:22)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 25 2010,20:17)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 25 2010,19:16)
That's nice Joe, but where are the specifications for any living organism?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Look in any biology textbook you moron.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd bet even your car is a Dodge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Grand National- 1987 black on black

Eat your freakin' heart out...
Posted by: rhmc on Feb. 25 2010,19:24

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 25 2010,20:23)
Quote (rhmc @ Feb. 25 2010,19:22)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 25 2010,20:17)
 
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 25 2010,19:16)
That's nice Joe, but where are the specifications for any living organism?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Look in any biology textbook you moron.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd bet even your car is a Dodge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Grand National- 1987 black on black

Eat your freakin' heart out...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


sure it is.
Posted by: Joe G on Feb. 25 2010,19:28

Quote (rhmc @ Feb. 25 2010,19:24)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 25 2010,20:23)
Quote (rhmc @ Feb. 25 2010,19:22)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 25 2010,20:17)
 
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 25 2010,19:16)
That's nice Joe, but where are the specifications for any living organism?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Look in any biology textbook you moron.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd bet even your car is a Dodge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Grand National- 1987 black on black

Eat your freakin' heart out...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


sure it is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jealousy- Oh how I love your jealousy...
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Feb. 25 2010,19:29

Textbooks don't have any before-the-fact specifications Joe.  They have descriptions of the makeup of proteins that were determined by after-the-fact observations.

You need to show where the specifications were listed first, and then confirmed by observation.  Otherwise you're just doing the 'sharpshooter's fallacy' - shooting an arrow anywhere into the side of the barn, then drawing the target around it afterward and claiming a bulls-eye.

Where are the before-the-fact specifications Joe?
Posted by: Joe G on Feb. 25 2010,19:38

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 25 2010,19:29)
Textbooks don't have any before-the-fact specifications Joe.  They have descriptions of the makeup of proteins that were determined by after-the-fact observations.

You need to show where the specifications were listed first, and then confirmed by observation.  Otherwise you're just doing the 'sharpshooter's fallacy' - shooting an arrow anywhere into the side of the barn, then drawing the target around it afterward and claiming a bulls-eye.

Where are the before-the-fact specifications Joe?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Umm the theory of evolution is based on after-the-fact observation.

Science is an after-the-fact enterprise- you have to make an observation and THEN you formulate a hypothesis- after-the-fact.

But anyway Dr Behe discusses this in "Darwin's Black Box":



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That said what does your position have asshole?
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Feb. 25 2010,19:50

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 25 2010,19:38)
     
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 25 2010,19:29)
Textbooks don't have any before-the-fact specifications Joe.  They have descriptions of the makeup of proteins that were determined by after-the-fact observations.

You need to show where the specifications were listed first, and then confirmed by observation.  Otherwise you're just doing the 'sharpshooter's fallacy' - shooting an arrow anywhere into the side of the barn, then drawing the target around it afterward and claiming a bulls-eye.

Where are the before-the-fact specifications Joe?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Umm the theory of evolution is based on after-the-fact observation.

Science is an after-the-fact enterprise- you have to make an observation and THEN you formulate a hypothesis- after-the-fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ToE doesn't claim anything was built to a pre-existing specification either.

How can you tell if something is designed or not designed when your only criteria is "it looks like what it looks like"?

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But anyway Dr Behe discusses this in "Darwin's Black Box":

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That said what does your position have asshole?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean Behe claims it, but forgot to support his claims.

BTW, would that be the same Behe who testified that ID has as much scientific validity as astrology?  The same one who's an even bigger laughingstock than Dembski?  That Behe?
Posted by: carlsonjok on Feb. 25 2010,19:54

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 25 2010,19:23)
Quote (rhmc @ Feb. 25 2010,19:22)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 25 2010,20:17)
 
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 25 2010,19:16)
That's nice Joe, but where are the specifications for any living organism?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Look in any biology textbook you moron.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd bet even your car is a Dodge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Grand National- 1987 black on black

Eat your freakin' heart out...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why doesn't it surprise me that he drives a fuckin' Buick.  The only thing lamer would be an AMC.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Feb. 25 2010,20:06

Hey Joe, you do realize that it only takes 5 nucleotides to form a functional ribozyme that can catalyze other ribozymes and thus... everything.

5... that's it.

All Dembski's meaningless calculations are now well and truly useless.  They were useless before, but he still can't admit it.  

Tell me, Joe.  Have you ever done a calculation?  

So, when are you going to fill in the blanks of the 6th grade level lab report.  Shouldn't be too hard for a genius like you.

How about this Joe: Rank the following in specified complexity.

A) Homo sapien
B) Mycoplasma genitalium
C) Amoeba dubia

kthnx
Posted by: carlsonjok on Feb. 25 2010,20:14

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 25 2010,20:06)
Tell me, Joe.  Have you ever done a calculation?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He sure has!  < Behold! >
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 25 2010,20:24

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 25 2010,20:54)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 25 2010,19:23)
Quote (rhmc @ Feb. 25 2010,19:22)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 25 2010,20:17)
 
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 25 2010,19:16)
That's nice Joe, but where are the specifications for any living organism?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Look in any biology textbook you moron.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd bet even your car is a Dodge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Grand National- 1987 black on black

Eat your freakin' heart out...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why doesn't it surprise me that he drives a fuckin' Buick.  The only thing lamer would be an AMC.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yeah it's a buick but it ain't no grand national.  bitch drives a regal.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Feb. 25 2010,20:46

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 25 2010,20:14)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 25 2010,20:06)
Tell me, Joe.  Have you ever done a calculation?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He sure has!  < Behold! >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't believe you.

All I get in an error from the link.
Posted by: J-Dog on Feb. 25 2010,21:07

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 25 2010,20:46)
All I get in an error from the link.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I get a bunch of giberish from the link.  Oh, wait,. that's just Joe's O'Leary-like attempt at communicating.

SRSLY - link works fine for me.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Feb. 25 2010,21:52

hmmm... apparently the information content of the webpage was too much for my old PC to calculate... or something like that.

I still call BS on the calculation.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A simple character count reveals 202 characters which translates into 1010 bits of information/ specified complexity..

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Those are the only two numbers in the whole darn post.  There is no explanation of how 202 characters = 1010 bits.

The implication is that 5 bits = 1 character, but why?

Standard ASCII had 8 bits per character (including all numbers, punctuation, control functions, and a space).  

Because this is from an ID blog and there's really no chance that they understand these types of things, I'll quote from wiki



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A fair coin has an entropy of one bit. However, if the coin is not fair, then the uncertainty is lower (if asked to bet on the next outcome, we would bet preferentially on the most frequent result), and thus the Shannon entropy is lower. Mathematically, a coin flip is an example of a Bernoulli trial, and its entropy is given by the binary entropy function. A long string of repeating characters has an entropy rate of 0, since every character is predictable. The entropy rate of English text is between 1.0 and 1.5 bits per letter,[1] or as low as 0.6 to 1.3 bits per letter, according to estimates by Shannon based on human experiments.[2]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< Wikipedia - Entropy (Information Theory) >

So, Joe, please do explain how you arrived at your 'calculation'*.  Why you used the values that you did and what was the point of the exercise (other than showing off 3rd grade level math skills).


* I hesitate to call multiplying a 3 digit number by 5 a 'calculation'.  In the strictest sense of the word, it is a calculation, but it is so trivial that any reasonably competent 3rd grader could accomplish the same thing and with more explanation as to 'why' he/she performed the calculation.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Feb. 25 2010,21:58

So, if I read this straight, and with Joe G there's no straight, there is something called "specified complexity" but it's up to us, real scientists to come up with examples and definitions.

Is that right, Joe?

How about you, Joe, giving us a definition and example of "specified complexity" without telling us to go howl at the moon or something.

Better yet, if you can't provide the info ask you boyfriend to.  Either way it would move along the discussion.

thx
Posted by: Louis on Feb. 26 2010,04:25

Sorry, but is our Internet Tough Guy reduced to "boasting" about his 23 year old car?

Wow....just wow.

I wonder if Joe has a mullet.

Louis
Posted by: Wolfhound on Feb. 26 2010,05:59

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 26 2010,05:25)
Sorry, but is our Internet Tough Guy reduced to "boasting" about his 23 year old car?

Wow....just wow.

I wonder if Joe has a mullet.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, yes.  Yes, he does.
Posted by: didymos on Feb. 26 2010,07:04

Here, a little somethin' for Our Favorite Wounded Vet.  You know, to thank him for his service:



Posted by: rhmc on Feb. 26 2010,08:37

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 26 2010,05:25)
Sorry, but is our Internet Tough Guy reduced to "boasting" about his 23 year old car?

Wow....just wow.

I wonder if Joe has a mullet.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suspect he didn't grasp the "Dodge" part, either.  :)

Despite his claims to drive a Dodge, as noted by others, the Grand National is a Buick which is NOT a Chrysler product.

Draw your own conclusions about his vehicle but I suspect it's a K-car and more of a dodge than he understands.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Feb. 26 2010,09:59

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 25 2010,20:14)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 25 2010,20:06)
Tell me, Joe.  Have you ever done a calculation?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He sure has!  < Behold! >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You guys remember Joe bragging about his security clearance and his basement laboratory stocked with all sorts of whiz-bang equipment?

Well, I have heard from a reliable source that he just took delivery of his brand new CSI calculator.


Posted by: didymos on Feb. 26 2010,10:07

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 26 2010,07:59)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 25 2010,20:14)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 25 2010,20:06)
Tell me, Joe.  Have you ever done a calculation?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He sure has!  < Behold! >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You guys remember Joe bragging about his security clearance and his basement laboratory stocked with all sorts of whiz-bang equipment?

Well, I have heard from a reliable source that he just took delivery of his brand new CSI calculator.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I still have trouble believing those things can actually bake shit.  I've even seen it, but I just don't want to accept it on some level.
Posted by: Richard Simons on Feb. 26 2010,20:12

Quote (didymos @ Feb. 26 2010,10:07)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 26 2010,07:59)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 25 2010,20:14)
   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 25 2010,20:06)
Tell me, Joe.  Have you ever done a calculation?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He sure has!  < Behold! >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You guys remember Joe bragging about his security clearance and his basement laboratory stocked with all sorts of whiz-bang equipment?

Well, I have heard from a reliable source that he just took delivery of his brand new CSI calculator.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I still have trouble believing those things can actually bake shit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Err - Why would you want to?
Posted by: digitus impudicus on Feb. 26 2010,21:03

Now I know for sure that Joe G is full of it.

I remember the 1987 GN, and the GNX.

The GN didn't have a black interior.  It had gray faces on the seats, with an embroidered 6 with an arrow tip at the end of the 6.
Posted by: digitus impudicus on Feb. 26 2010,21:10

Why is there such a strong correlation between:

Creationism/Rednecks(southern and northern varieties)/fundamentalism/ autos that are fast in a straight line/cars that cannot corner/ cars parked in trees

GN and GNX's were worthless in corners.  They were fast in a straight line for their time, but there are many cars before and since those that are faster in a straight line.

Besides, TVR's and any Lotus's could wipe the asphalt with a GN.   Hell, the Elise can do it with about 100 less BHP (if my memory serves me right)

PS - even if my memory isn't right on the difference between the BHP difference between and Elise and a GN, the wiping the asphalt with the GNX still applies in the quarter mile

PPS - leaving the quarter mile for any sort of twisty bits, the Elise doesn't just wipe the asphalt with the remains of the GN, it scrapes it off of the Elises dainty tires

PPPS - Don't get me started on the comparison of a GN and an Exige...

PPPPS - stopping before I sound too much like GEM of TKI
Posted by: OgreMkV on Feb. 26 2010,21:41

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 25 2010,10:31)
I mentioned this marketing idea to one of the senior people in the marketing dept.

My P45*. I has it.

Louis

*P45 = UK equivalent of a pink slip. Not this kind of pink slip:



Sadly.

ETA: The lady in the photo is the senior person in marketing I mentioned it to. What a coinkydink!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry, but this deserves to be on this page.  After having to look at ITGx2 and a dork with an Easy Bake.... shudder.

And I don't care what you guys think, I think she's lovely.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Feb. 26 2010,21:59

I drive a 1985 Toyota pickup truck, 2WD, 22R engine, 4 speed manual transmission. It was my work truck, and I did have the undercarriage armored with skid plates, and the front end was reinforced here and there with angle iron.

It has 117,777.7 original miles (when I parked it this afternoon).

I just replaced the original rear break pads yesterday. I replaced the original alternator last week. Working off-road, I have gone through dozens of tires. I have only got mired twice, one time because the truck I was following (4WD) stopped. I have never washed it. The roof of my camper shell has lichen growing on it.

What were we talking about?


Posted by: digitus impudicus on Feb. 26 2010,22:12

My oldest automotive child is a 1970 TR-6.

Probably a little over the 100K mark.

She is beautiful, dark blue, blue interior (one day I hope to change that), and knock off wire wheels.

She has the Michelin redlines.  They squee when cornering.  No power steering, and sometime soon will need work on the transmission (getting into 1st is sometimes stubborn, she needs a gentle but firm hand).  Of course, no A/C, no power windows, and a stiff clutch.  But she runs, and sounds like nothing else in the past 30 years.

She isn't practical, but she is mine, and a hell of a lot more interesting than the piddling Regal with a 6 cyl turbo.
Posted by: digitus impudicus on Feb. 26 2010,22:15

It is an automobile that requires you to get your hands dirty, bruised, and crushed at time.

Sort of like good science.

Something that Joe G with his Regal wouldn't know about.
Posted by: Acipenser on Feb. 26 2010,22:24

Our two ranch trucks are a 1951 Chevy with a 1959-235 passenger car engine that replaced the old 216 engine years ago.  When I first met my wife this was our only rig for about 6 years and of course no AC which  made for a warm ride in the 110 F days of summer.  It is also colonized with lichen and moss mostly on the outside.

The other is a 1986 Toyota one-ton 2wd with 242,000+ miles on the 22R motor and a 5 speed manual transmission.  Great trucks!
Posted by: Dr.GH on Feb. 26 2010,22:28

I was driving my truck the three blocks to the harbor this morning, and I had to stop at a traffic light (There are four in three freaking blocks). Ahead of me was a new Lamborghini.

The heat pouring off the engine created light distortion in a ~160 degree arc. The nitwit driver roared off a whole block to the next red light, while I arrived seconds later- still in second gear. I realized the Lamborghini had never left first gear.

That is why, in my town we only see new Lamborghinis. (About the same story with the Maserati, but they seem to last at least a year or two longer). We locals call them "penis substitutes."
Posted by: digitus impudicus on Feb. 26 2010,22:31

I personally haven't owned a real truck.  My grandfather had several.

My favorite was a 1960's Chevy 1/2 ton. SWB, only had a two speed auto tranny.  Once again, no power anything, no A/C, but had a nice small block v8, and when he owned it it had two tone primer.  I used to drive it occasionally when I was in college.  It was great in rush hour traffic since folks thought you had no insurance.  They generally moved out of your way....
Posted by: Dr.GH on Feb. 26 2010,22:34

Quote (Acipenser @ Feb. 26 2010,20:24)
The other is a 1986 Toyota one-ton 2wd with 242,000+ miles on the 22R motor and a 5 speed manual transmission.  Great trucks!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My first Toy PU had a 5 speed transmission, and I really loved it. The first gear was so low that I could climb almost any hill. The 4 speed takes a more aggessive approach to climbing a hill, get in second and floor it.


Posted by: digitus impudicus on Feb. 26 2010,22:38

my grandfather also had a 1970 Buick Riviera.

When he first acquired it, it had been sitting up for about 15 years.  The exhaust pipes had rotted out, but being the redneck that I am I drove it while it was still getting civilized.  Before the pipes were fixed, it sounded like a WWII fighter landing when you were decelerating.

Wonderful car, but gone now after so many years and family issues.

There was also a 70's two door Plymouth Satellite.  Red, white vinyl top, 318(?), white vinyl interior.  Amazing under-rated hot rod.  Gone before I could drive.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Feb. 26 2010,22:42

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 26 2010,02:25)
Sorry, but is our Internet Tough Guy reduced to "boasting" about his 23 year old car?

Wow....just wow.

...

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Louis, The car/truck thing is more a US issue thingy.

There was an old cowboy joke that there was only one thing worth doing that you couldn't do riding a horse- taking a crap. (Yes, yes. I think I could, too. The trick would be to  ... never mind).*

We updated that for our trucks (and were far more comfortable).

* Edit to add: It couldn't work with an English saddle anyway.


Posted by: digitus impudicus on Feb. 26 2010,22:47

I don't think Louis is an automotive afficianado...

(whatever the spelling of that should be)
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 26 2010,22:50

Quote (digitus impudicus @ Feb. 26 2010,22:47)
I don't think Louis is an automotive afficianado...

(whatever the spelling of that should be)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....61;st=0 >
Posted by: digitus impudicus on Feb. 26 2010,23:01

aaawwww...RTH...

You remember me...

HOMO!!!!

11!!!!1111!!!! eleventy !!!!111!!!
Posted by: digitus impudicus on Feb. 26 2010,23:02

the previous posting by DI was rather banal.

Please ignore.

We now return you to your previously scheduled programming...
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 26 2010,23:06

Quote (digitus impudicus @ Feb. 26 2010,23:02)
the previous posting by DI was rather banal.

Please ignore.

We now return you to your previously scheduled programming...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


THAT WAS YOU"RE POST OF TEH WEAK.
Posted by: digitus impudicus on Feb. 26 2010,23:06

and where the f*!* is Joe G(tard) when you need to abuse his ideas about automotive iron?


FFS, his ideas about biology are scarcely worth regarding.

hopefully his automotive discussions might prove a little more worthwhile?

of course, I think his ultimate auto would be something like this:

< http://www.google.com/imgres?....rl=http >
Posted by: digitus impudicus on Feb. 26 2010,23:07

Of course, there is nothing intrinsically wrong about an Isetta.
Posted by: fnxtr on Feb. 27 2010,01:31

Quote (Acipenser @ Feb. 26 2010,20:24)
Our two ranch trucks are a 1951 Chevy with a 1959-235 passenger car engine that replaced the old 216 engine years ago.  When I first met my wife this was our only rig for about 6 years and of course no AC which  made for a warm ride in the 110 F days of summer.  It is also colonized with lichen and moss mostly on the outside.

The other is a 1986 Toyota one-ton 2wd with 242,000+ miles on the 22R motor and a 5 speed manual transmission.  Great trucks!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Our farm truck around 69/70 was a Fargo of unspecified date, even the primer had faded to a sort of dusty rose / angry salmon hue, depending on your proclivity. Oh, and a BRIGHT YELLOW Dodge flatbed.
Posted by: didymos on Feb. 27 2010,02:46

Quote (Richard Simons @ Feb. 26 2010,18:12)
Quote (didymos @ Feb. 26 2010,10:07)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 26 2010,07:59)
   
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 25 2010,20:14)
   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 25 2010,20:06)
Tell me, Joe.  Have you ever done a calculation?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He sure has!  < Behold! >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You guys remember Joe bragging about his security clearance and his basement laboratory stocked with all sorts of whiz-bang equipment?

Well, I have heard from a reliable source that he just took delivery of his brand new CSI calculator.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I still have trouble believing those things can actually bake shit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Err - Why would you want to?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Umm, I imagine if you're a child, it could seem like a good idea.  That's sort of the point of the toy, right?
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 27 2010,02:49

Quote (digitus impudicus @ Feb. 26 2010,21:10)
Why is there such a strong correlation between:

Creationism/Rednecks(southern and northern varieties)/fundamentalism/ autos that are fast in a straight line/cars that cannot corner/ cars parked in trees

GN and GNX's were worthless in corners.  They were fast in a straight line for their time, but there are many cars before and since those that are faster in a straight line.

Besides, TVR's and any Lotus's could wipe the asphalt with a GN.   Hell, the Elise can do it with about 100 less BHP (if my memory serves me right)

PS - even if my memory isn't right on the difference between the BHP difference between and Elise and a GN, the wiping the asphalt with the GNX still applies in the quarter mile

PPS - leaving the quarter mile for any sort of twisty bits, the Elise doesn't just wipe the asphalt with the remains of the GN, it scrapes it off of the Elises dainty tires

PPPS - Don't get me started on the comparison of a GN and an Exige...

PPPPS - stopping before I sound too much like GEM of TKI
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Lotus elise is just about the prettiest car I can think of. I want me one.

< http://www.grouplotus.com/cars/showroom.html#/elise/eliseS/ >
Posted by: digitus impudicus on Feb. 27 2010,03:15

yes, the Elise is something of an automotive nirvana.

at least for on road stuff.

for off road roads, one must really go to the old Land Rovers...
Posted by: Quack on Feb. 27 2010,03:20

Well now beat this:
My first car was one like this:

Back in Norway, I learned it was called 'hobo in tuxedo'

Best car buy I ever made must have been a ten years old Hillman Minx in 1967. Do I detect the glint of a tear in Louis' eye?


Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Feb. 27 2010,06:17

Quote (didymos @ Feb. 27 2010,03:46)
Quote (Richard Simons @ Feb. 26 2010,18:12)
 
Quote (didymos @ Feb. 26 2010,10:07)
   
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 26 2010,07:59)
     
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 25 2010,20:14)
     
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 25 2010,20:06)
Tell me, Joe.  Have you ever done a calculation?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He sure has!  < Behold! >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You guys remember Joe bragging about his security clearance and his basement laboratory stocked with all sorts of whiz-bang equipment?

Well, I have heard from a reliable source that he just took delivery of his brand new CSI calculator.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I still have trouble believing those things can actually bake shit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Err - Why would you want to?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Umm, I imagine if you're a child, it could seem like a good idea.  That's sort of the point of the toy, right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's gonna be tough baking anything with a pair of mini-florescents.
Posted by: rhmc on Feb. 27 2010,08:47

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 27 2010,07:17)
Quote (didymos @ Feb. 27 2010,03:46)
 
Quote (Richard Simons @ Feb. 26 2010,18:12)
 
Quote (didymos @ Feb. 26 2010,10:07)
     
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 26 2010,07:59)
     
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 25 2010,20:14)
       
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 25 2010,20:06)
Tell me, Joe.  Have you ever done a calculation?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He sure has!  < Behold! >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You guys remember Joe bragging about his security clearance and his basement laboratory stocked with all sorts of whiz-bang equipment?

Well, I have heard from a reliable source that he just took delivery of his brand new CSI calculator.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I still have trouble believing those things can actually bake shit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Err - Why would you want to?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Umm, I imagine if you're a child, it could seem like a good idea.  That's sort of the point of the toy, right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's gonna be tough baking anything with a pair of mini-florescents.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


that won't matter, the recipe is a dud anyway.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Feb. 27 2010,08:54

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 27 2010,06:17)
Quote (didymos @ Feb. 27 2010,03:46)
 
Quote (Richard Simons @ Feb. 26 2010,18:12)
 
Quote (didymos @ Feb. 26 2010,10:07)
     
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 26 2010,07:59)
     
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 25 2010,20:14)
       
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 25 2010,20:06)
Tell me, Joe.  Have you ever done a calculation?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He sure has!  < Behold! >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You guys remember Joe bragging about his security clearance and his basement laboratory stocked with all sorts of whiz-bang equipment?

Well, I have heard from a reliable source that he just took delivery of his brand new CSI calculator.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I still have trouble believing those things can actually bake shit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Err - Why would you want to?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Umm, I imagine if you're a child, it could seem like a good idea.  That's sort of the point of the toy, right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's gonna be tough baking anything with a pair of mini-florescents.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just to be clear, are you talking about Joe or the Easy Bake oven?
Posted by: fnxtr on Feb. 27 2010,13:05

From what I've read GI Joe's already baked.


Ba-dump bump.
Posted by: didymos on Feb. 27 2010,14:05

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 27 2010,06:54)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 27 2010,06:17)
Quote (didymos @ Feb. 27 2010,03:46)
 
Quote (Richard Simons @ Feb. 26 2010,18:12)
   
Quote (didymos @ Feb. 26 2010,10:07)
     
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 26 2010,07:59)
       
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 25 2010,20:14)
       
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 25 2010,20:06)
Tell me, Joe.  Have you ever done a calculation?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He sure has!  < Behold! >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You guys remember Joe bragging about his security clearance and his basement laboratory stocked with all sorts of whiz-bang equipment?

Well, I have heard from a reliable source that he just took delivery of his brand new CSI calculator.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I still have trouble believing those things can actually bake shit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Err - Why would you want to?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Umm, I imagine if you're a child, it could seem like a good idea.  That's sort of the point of the toy, right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's gonna be tough baking anything with a pair of mini-florescents.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just to be clear, are you talking about Joe or the Easy Bake oven?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Easy-bake. No wait...Joe?  No, no: definitely the Easy-bake.
Posted by: didymos on Feb. 27 2010,14:06

Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 27 2010,11:05)
From what I've read GI Joe's already baked.


Ba-dump bump.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here ya go:

< http://www.instantrimshot.com/ >
Posted by: OgreMkV on Feb. 28 2010,13:13

So where did the little wimp go?  He's too scared to answer questions?  

You know, a couple dozen posts of screaming and cursing (and a rant about how badass his POS car is) and nothing.  

1) Is this the best Dembski's team has?
2) If he's a Christian, then he has greatly supported my thoughts about that particular sub-species known as the Xian fundie.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 28 2010,14:23

Shot this a while back in the parking lot at school, on the back of an old 80s model rust-bucket station wagon. Thought I'd share.





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Nice Truck >, by LouFCD on Flickr.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: blipey on Feb. 28 2010,14:42

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 28 2010,13:13)
So where did the little wimp go?  He's too scared to answer questions?  

You know, a couple dozen posts of screaming and cursing (and a rant about how badass his POS car is) and nothing.  

1) Is this the best Dembski's team has?
2) If he's a Christian, then he has greatly supported my thoughts about that particular sub-species known as the Xian fundie.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought he was claiming to be a Muslim or something?  IIRC, it was to prove that ID is less of a niche idiocy than we otherwise would suppose.
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 01 2010,11:18

Has the tardgasm finished? Is Joe sitting somewhere all sweaty and flushed after his tardsturbation?

If so, the Drama Llama has paid the Richard Dawkins Forums a visit. Watch the internets melt down over there. At least it's a more articulate -gasm of some species than Joe's outpourings.

Louis
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 01 2010,11:19

Quote (Quack @ Feb. 27 2010,08:20)
Well now beat this:
My first car was one like this:

Back in Norway, I learned it was called 'hobo in tuxedo'

Best car buy I ever made must have been a ten years old Hillman Minx in 1967. Do I detect the glint of a tear in Louis' eye?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sadly the Hillman Minx was before my time, even though it was a lovely* vehicle.

Louis

*Lovely doesn't necessarily mean it worked!
Posted by: Quack on Mar. 01 2010,11:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sadly the Hillman Minx was before my time, even though it was a lovely* vehicle.

Louis

*Lovely doesn't necessarily mean it worked!

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought so. But I drove it for two years without a hitch and with the then new-fangled radial tires it was a dream to drive - for that time in history at least.

It had leather upholstery, what we called a 'sofa seat' and a column mounted gear shift handle.
Posted by: fnxtr on Mar. 01 2010,12:47

Quote (Quack @ Mar. 01 2010,09:38)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sadly the Hillman Minx was before my time, even though it was a lovely* vehicle.

Louis

*Lovely doesn't necessarily mean it worked!

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought so. But I drove it for two years without a hitch and with the then new-fangled radial tires it was a dream to drive - for that time in history at least.

It had leather upholstery, what we called a 'sofa seat' and a column mounted gear shift handle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I miss bench seats. So many lost opportunities with buckets.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Mar. 01 2010,13:09

Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 01 2010,12:47)
 
Quote (Quack @ Mar. 01 2010,09:38)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sadly the Hillman Minx was before my time, even though it was a lovely* vehicle.

Louis

*Lovely doesn't necessarily mean it worked!

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought so. But I drove it for two years without a hitch and with the then new-fangled radial tires it was a dream to drive - for that time in history at least.

It had leather upholstery, what we called a 'sofa seat' and a column mounted gear shift handle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I miss bench seats. So many lost opportunities with buckets.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Way back in high school I had a beater 68 Plymouth Satellite with bench seats.  That led to what back then we called "COD" turns for "come over darling" - a hard right hand corner so your girlfriend would end up in your lap.   Also known as an "SOB" turn - "slide over babe!"
Posted by: ppb on Mar. 01 2010,13:58

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Mar. 01 2010,14:09)
Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 01 2010,12:47)
 
Quote (Quack @ Mar. 01 2010,09:38)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sadly the Hillman Minx was before my time, even though it was a lovely* vehicle.

Louis

*Lovely doesn't necessarily mean it worked!

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought so. But I drove it for two years without a hitch and with the then new-fangled radial tires it was a dream to drive - for that time in history at least.

It had leather upholstery, what we called a 'sofa seat' and a column mounted gear shift handle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I miss bench seats. So many lost opportunities with buckets.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Way back in high school I had a beater 68 Plymouth Satellite with bench seats.  That led to what back then we called "COD" turns for "come over darling" - a hard right hand corner so your girlfriend would end up in your lap.   Also known as an "SOB" turn - "slide over babe!"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sadly, my only memory of bench seats is getting stuck sitting between my parents on long trips.  Oh, the trials of being the baby of the family!
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Mar. 01 2010,15:03

The advent of bucket seats probably did more to reduce teenage pregnancies than any other single factor.   ;)
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 01 2010,15:38

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Mar. 01 2010,13:09)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 01 2010,12:47)
   
Quote (Quack @ Mar. 01 2010,09:38)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sadly the Hillman Minx was before my time, even though it was a lovely* vehicle.

Louis

*Lovely doesn't necessarily mean it worked!

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought so. But I drove it for two years without a hitch and with the then new-fangled radial tires it was a dream to drive - for that time in history at least.

It had leather upholstery, what we called a 'sofa seat' and a column mounted gear shift handle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I miss bench seats. So many lost opportunities with buckets.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Way back in high school I had a beater 68 Plymouth Satellite with bench seats.  That led to what back then we called "COD" turns for "come over darling" - a hard right hand corner so your girlfriend would end up in your lap.   Also known as an "SOB" turn - "slide over babe!"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlZvYcDLtYc >
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 02 2010,08:01

Quote (Louis @ Mar. 01 2010,11:18)
Has the tardgasm finished? Is Joe sitting somewhere all sweaty and flushed after his tardsturbation?

If so, the Drama Llama has paid the Richard Dawkins Forums a visit. Watch the internets melt down over there. At least it's a more articulate -gasm of some species than Joe's outpourings.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No asshole- you are still alive and I am sure you have more tard to spew.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Mar. 02 2010,08:15

Insults... you're doing them wrong.

I half expected Joe to say, 'neener, neener, neener'.  But I realized that stringing together three multi-syllable words that weren’t curses is beyond your cognitive capability.  

How have I tested this hypothesis?  Well, my hypothesis predicts that Joe can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.  And observation has discovered a sprawling JoeG with partially masticated chewing gum lying beside him.

My hypothesis further predicts that JoeG is ugly.  The experiment was to compare JoeG with the hind end of a canine of indeterminate ancestry.  When presented to a random sample population, the majority found the dog’s hind end to more aesthetically pleasing.
Posted by: KCdgw on Mar. 02 2010,08:31

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,08:01)
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 01 2010,11:18)
Has the tardgasm finished? Is Joe sitting somewhere all sweaty and flushed after his tardsturbation?

If so, the Drama Llama has paid the Richard Dawkins Forums a visit. Watch the internets melt down over there. At least it's a more articulate -gasm of some species than Joe's outpourings.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No asshole- you are still alive and I am sure you have more tard to spew.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Somewhere Pavlov is smiling.
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 02 2010,08:35

Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 02 2010,08:15)
Insults... you're doing them wrong.

I half expected Joe to say, 'neener, neener, neener'.  But I realized that stringing together three multi-syllable words that weren’t curses is beyond your cognitive capability.  

How have I tested this hypothesis?  Well, my hypothesis predicts that Joe can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.  And observation has discovered a sprawling JoeG with partially masticated chewing gum lying beside him.

My hypothesis further predicts that JoeG is ugly.  The experiment was to compare JoeG with the hind end of a canine of indeterminate ancestry.  When presented to a random sample population, the majority found the dog’s hind end to more aesthetically pleasing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What insults?

I am just making valid observations.

And yes I am ugly- so what?

At least I am not as moronic as you.

I can get plastic surgery but you will always be a fucking retard.
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 02 2010,08:36

Quote (KCdgw @ Mar. 02 2010,08:31)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,08:01)
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 01 2010,11:18)
Has the tardgasm finished? Is Joe sitting somewhere all sweaty and flushed after his tardsturbation?

If so, the Drama Llama has paid the Richard Dawkins Forums a visit. Watch the internets melt down over there. At least it's a more articulate -gasm of some species than Joe's outpourings.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No asshole- you are still alive and I am sure you have more tard to spew.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Somewhere Pavlov is smiling.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Smiling AT you-, you ding-a-ling
Posted by: OgreMkV on Mar. 02 2010,11:33

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,08:35)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 02 2010,08:15)
Insults... you're doing them wrong.

I half expected Joe to say, 'neener, neener, neener'.  But I realized that stringing together three multi-syllable words that weren’t curses is beyond your cognitive capability.  

How have I tested this hypothesis?  Well, my hypothesis predicts that Joe can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.  And observation has discovered a sprawling JoeG with partially masticated chewing gum lying beside him.

My hypothesis further predicts that JoeG is ugly.  The experiment was to compare JoeG with the hind end of a canine of indeterminate ancestry.  When presented to a random sample population, the majority found the dog’s hind end to more aesthetically pleasing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What insults?

I am just making valid observations.

And yes I am ugly- so what?

At least I am not as moronic as you.

I can get plastic surgery but you will always be a fucking retard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The prosecution rests.
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 02 2010,12:00

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,13:01)
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 01 2010,11:18)
Has the tardgasm finished? Is Joe sitting somewhere all sweaty and flushed after his tardsturbation?

If so, the Drama Llama has paid the Richard Dawkins Forums a visit. Watch the internets melt down over there. At least it's a more articulate -gasm of some species than Joe's outpourings.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No asshole- you are still alive and I am sure you have more tard to spew.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I spout tard? Oh no no no little doggie. You have that entirely backwards, still, your attempt at projection is noted. And stupid.

Tell me little doggie, will you bark for me some more? Perhaps you'll try to hump someone's leg. Come on pooch, yap yap, jump and yap.

Louis
Posted by: blipey on Mar. 02 2010,12:02

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,08:36)
Quote (KCdgw @ Mar. 02 2010,08:31)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,08:01)
 
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 01 2010,11:18)
Has the tardgasm finished? Is Joe sitting somewhere all sweaty and flushed after his tardsturbation?

If so, the Drama Llama has paid the Richard Dawkins Forums a visit. Watch the internets melt down over there. At least it's a more articulate -gasm of some species than Joe's outpourings.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No asshole- you are still alive and I am sure you have more tard to spew.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Somewhere Pavlov is smiling.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Smiling AT you-, you ding-a-ling
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is a small sample of your inability to properly insult people.  Also, it has relevance to your inability to properly construct jokes.

The response should not have been "Smiling AT you."  This would indicate that the original sentence had referenced you directly but gotten the preposition wrong.  Your emphasis of the preposition would be funny if you were in fact punning on the error (or perceived error) of the original statement.  Sadly, this is not the case.

The response should have been "Smiling at YOU."  This would indicate both your understanding that the original line was intended as a jibe at yourself and that you have some superior knowledge that allows you know the real jibe should be taken at the speaker.

This is basic stuff, Joe.  I think you have it in you to be funny.  My offer of acting and improvisation classes is still open.
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 02 2010,12:04

Quote (KCdgw @ Mar. 02 2010,13:31)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,08:01)
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 01 2010,11:18)
Has the tardgasm finished? Is Joe sitting somewhere all sweaty and flushed after his tardsturbation?

If so, the Drama Llama has paid the Richard Dawkins Forums a visit. Watch the internets melt down over there. At least it's a more articulate -gasm of some species than Joe's outpourings.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No asshole- you are still alive and I am sure you have more tard to spew.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Somewhere Pavlov is smiling.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lol shhhhhhh the doggie doesn't understand, don't give the game away. The doggie is too stupid to do anything but spew tard, drop turds and yap ineffectually. Letting it know about Pavlov will give it ideas above it's station. It isn't an experimental subject, it's a chew toy.

I shouldn't be amused by poking it with a stick, but dammit it *is* kinda funny. I know, I know, it makes me a bad person. Still, poke poke, yap yap, har har.

Louis
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 02 2010,12:10

Quote (blipey @ Mar. 02 2010,17:02)
[SNIP]

My offer of acting and improvisation classes is still open.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Blipey,

Can you include washing and basic personal hygeine classes. Poochie smells. Basic literacy skills might help poor wickle poochie too. It seems to be very confused and it clearly can't understand anything.

Also, whilst I'm no product of Miss Manners' School for Not Using the Sweary Words, the little mutt can only use the word "asshole". I'm not sure if he is advocating a particular sexual preference or commenting on his own aroma, but we'd all be very grateful if you could expand his vocabulary too.

I know this is a lot of work for one person to accomplish, you will be more than compensated for your efforts from the Evil Atheist Conspiracy* Church Burning Ebola Boy Relief Fund.

Louis

*Does. Not. Exist. Helicopters. Black. Vehicles. Your location. Now. Memory. Gone.
Posted by: blipey on Mar. 02 2010,12:19

Well, Louis.  I can get pooch to increase or decrease his use of the asshole stratagem, but have never gotten him to expand his area of operation.  It seems you can't teach an old dog new tricks after all.
Posted by: KCdgw on Mar. 02 2010,12:35

Quote (blipey @ Mar. 02 2010,12:19)
Well, Louis.  I can get pooch to increase or decrease his use of the asshole stratagem, but have never gotten him to expand his area of operation.  It seems you can't teach an old dog new tricks after all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But you can sure get him to drool on cue like a sonofabitch.
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 02 2010,12:53

Quote (blipey @ Mar. 02 2010,17:19)
Well, Louis.  I can get pooch to increase or decrease his use of the asshole stratagem, but have never gotten him to expand his area of operation.  It seems you can't teach an old dog new tricks after all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe if we moved to testicle cuffs and an electric cattle prod?

Not for him you understand, I have guests this weekend. Sorry I just got distracted.

I'd settle for teaching the pooch not to make poopies on the carpet. Maybe you should team up Olegt and meet Joe and ID Guy in a car park, at least you and Olegt are different people, not just voices in a doggy's confused, crack addled brain.

Louis
Posted by: dnmlthr on Mar. 02 2010,13:12

How can you reach something approximating adulthood without knowing about Pavlov? I'm amazed and appalled.

Hope you're feeling honoured Joe Gangsta, I delurked just for you darling.

Ding ding ding.
Posted by: slpage on Mar. 02 2010,14:24

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 25 2010,20:14)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 25 2010,20:06)
Tell me, Joe.  Have you ever done a calculation?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He sure has!  < Behold! >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, an aardvark only 202 characters?

Didn't Berlinski count 50,000 character differences between cows and whales?
Posted by: blipey on Mar. 02 2010,14:48

Quote (Louis @ Mar. 02 2010,12:53)
{snip}  at least you and Olegt are different people...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


are we?

p.s.  apologies to Olegt, who is much smarter than the other half of me...
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 02 2010,14:53

Quote (blipey @ Mar. 02 2010,19:48)
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 02 2010,12:53)
{snip}  at least you and Olegt are different people...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


are we?

p.s.  apologies to Olegt, who is much smarter than the other half of me...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ahhhh well this *is* the interwebs and everyone on it is really just one of the many personalities of a 400lb trucker from Arkansas called Bubba. Even the ladies.....

Especially the ladies.

Louis

P.S. I've just discovered, via Pharyngula, something called ChatRoulette. All I'll say is never again. Never, ever again.
Posted by: digitus impudicus on Mar. 05 2010,23:21

Joe?

Sweety?

Whatever happened to our GN/GNX discussion?

Is it parked in a tree?
Posted by: digitus impudicus on Mar. 05 2010,23:23

<Tammy Fay Bakker voice>

Jim?

Jim?

The kids were only joking honey.

Jim?

<close Tammy Fay Bakker voice>

(look up Sam Kinnison for those unfamiliar)
Posted by: JonF on Mar. 06 2010,15:22

Quote (Louis @ Mar. 02 2010,15:53)
P.S. I've just discovered, via Pharyngula, something called ChatRoulette. All I'll say is never again. Never, ever again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Daily Show did a great skit on ChatRoulette: < http://tinyurl.com/y9bdkjk. >  See if you can identify the headshot behind Keith Olbermann.
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 11 2010,08:29

Quote (digitus impudicus @ Mar. 05 2010,23:21)
Joe?

Sweety?

Whatever happened to our GN/GNX discussion?

Is it parked in a tree?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't have a GNX.

And why would I want to discuss my GN with you?

Someone asshead said I drive a Dodge.

I just corrected that nonsense.
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 11 2010,08:31

Quote (slpage @ Mar. 02 2010,14:24)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 25 2010,20:14)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 25 2010,20:06)
Tell me, Joe.  Have you ever done a calculation?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He sure has!  < Behold! >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, an aardvark only 202 characters?

Didn't Berlinski count 50,000 character differences between cows and whales?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dr Page proves he is an imbecile.

The definition of an aarvark only has that many characters.

Are you that stupid that you can't even understand what I post?

Do you realize that 13 year olds understand what you cannot?
Posted by: Richard Simons on Mar. 11 2010,08:39

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:31)
Quote (slpage @ Mar. 02 2010,14:24)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 25 2010,20:14)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 25 2010,20:06)
Tell me, Joe.  Have you ever done a calculation?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He sure has!  < Behold! >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, an aardvark only 202 characters?

Didn't Berlinski count 50,000 character differences between cows and whales?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dr Page proves he is an imbecile.

The definition of an aarvark only has that many characters.

Are you that stupid that you can't even understand what I post?

Do you realize that 13 year olds understand what you cannot?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So what was your point in bringing up a definition of an aardvark ? How does this relate to the amount of 'specified complex information' in an organism?
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 11 2010,08:51

Quote (Richard Simons @ Mar. 11 2010,08:39)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:31)
 
Quote (slpage @ Mar. 02 2010,14:24)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 25 2010,20:14)
   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 25 2010,20:06)
Tell me, Joe.  Have you ever done a calculation?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He sure has!  < Behold! >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, an aardvark only 202 characters?

Didn't Berlinski count 50,000 character differences between cows and whales?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dr Page proves he is an imbecile.

The definition of an aarvark only has that many characters.

Are you that stupid that you can't even understand what I post?

Do you realize that 13 year olds understand what you cannot?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So what was your point in bringing up a definition of an aardvark ? How does this relate to the amount of 'specified complex information' in an organism?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well Richard perhaps you should read that blog entry.

But most likely that won't help because you are an evotard...

So I will spoon-feed you-

In the post "Measuring Information/ specified complexity" I used the definition of an aarvark as an example of how to measure specified information to see if complex specified information is present.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 11 2010,09:34

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:51)
In the post "Measuring Information/ specified complexity" I used the definition of an aarvark as an example of how to measure specified information to see if complex specified information is present.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And what was the value you determined for the amount of information in a Aardvark?

And is that more or less then the information in a bacterial flagellum?
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 11 2010,09:37

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,09:34)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:51)
In the post "Measuring Information/ specified complexity" I used the definition of an aarvark as an example of how to measure specified information to see if complex specified information is present.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And what was the value you determined for the amount of information in a Aardvark?

And is that more or less then the information in a bacterial flagellum?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you really think your ignorance helps your case?

Even if ID is bunk you still couldn't support your position.

I take that bothers you.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 11 2010,09:39

So Joe,
About this debate. I don't think that a person who displays the level of intelligence that you typically display here could have $10,000 to put up in the first place. Unless you've been saving up the money that people throw at you to make you go away that is, in which case it's quite possible.

Put the money in escrow and perhaps you'll convince me that you have it in the first place and then we can get this debate kicked off.

< http://www.iescrow.com/ >
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 11 2010,09:44

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,09:39)
So Joe,
About this debate. I don't think that a person who displays the level of intelligence that you typically display here could have $10,000 to put up in the first place. Unless you've been saving up the money that people throw at you to make you go away that is, in which case it's quite possible.

Put the money in escrow and perhaps you'll convince me that you have it in the first place and then we can get this debate kicked off.

< http://www.iescrow.com/ >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nice projection you ignorant dolt.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 11 2010,09:51

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,09:37)

 
Do you really think your ignorance helps your case?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ignorance of what? Your "argument"? Seems like the entire biological community is doing just fine without your "input".

Interesting how you pretend I did not ask a question. I know that you have problems supporting your position, but if you could tell me which has more information (and how much more), an Aardvark or bacterial flagellum, that would go a long way to proving your case that ID deals in "information" and that you can quantify it.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Even if ID is bunk you still couldn't support your position.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And that's why "my position" is the default one and your position is doing so well in the courts, in schools, in journals.
I mean, look at the support that ID has for it's position
< http://www.iscid.org/ >
A journal that has not published in 5 years.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I take that bothers you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It seems to bother you, in fact it seems to bother you so much that you are here. Why not go to UD or TT and shout into the echo chamber?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 11 2010,09:52

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,09:44)
Nice projection you ignorant dolt.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The plural of insults is not "data" you know.

Tell me one thing, how do you keep a keyboard working with the amount of drool you must produce?
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 11 2010,09:55

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,09:51)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,09:37)

 
Do you really think your ignorance helps your case?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ignorance of what? Your "argument"? Seems like the entire biological community is doing just fine without your "input".

Interesting how you pretend I did not ask a question. I know that you have problems supporting your position, but if you could tell me which has more information (and how much more), an Aardvark or bacterial flagellum, that would go a long way to proving your case that ID deals in "information" and that you can quantify it.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Even if ID is bunk you still couldn't support your position.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And that's why "my position" is the default one and your position is doing so well in the courts, in schools, in journals.
I mean, look at the support that ID has for it's position
< http://www.iscid.org/ >
A journal that has not published in 5 years.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I take that bothers you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It seems to bother you, in fact it seems to bother you so much that you are here. Why not go to UD or TT and shout into the echo chamber?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Too bad that biological community has no idea if the transformations required are even possible via mutational accumulation.

And all YOU have is to try to bash ID with your ignorance.

You couldn't support your position if your life depended on it.

As for not answering questions- well limpdick tell me-

How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

It isn't in any textbooks. And it isn't in any peer-reviewed paper.

IOW asswipe your position is all smoke and mirrors.
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 11 2010,09:56

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,09:52)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,09:44)
Nice projection you ignorant dolt.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The plural of insults is not "data" you know.

Tell me one thing, how do you keep a keyboard working with the amount of drool you must produce?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


More projection from the drool-queen
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 11 2010,10:01

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,09:55)

Too bad that biological community has no idea if the transformations required are even possible via mutational accumulation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And your proof for that is what? Those words? Anything else?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And all YOU have is to try to bash ID with your ignorance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why don't you wow us all then and give a demonstration of the EF in action.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You couldn't support your position if your life depended on it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The argument has already happened. My "position" is the default. You've already lost, you just don't realise it.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

As for not answering questions- well limpdick tell me-

How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll answer that once you answer how we can test the premise that the bacterial flagellum was intelligently designed?

Also, which bacterial flagellum did you have in mind here? There are many variants. Any one in particular? I'm afraid I don't know what the variant is called that is on the banner at UD.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It isn't in any textbooks. And it isn't in any peer-reviewed paper.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As we've seen from the "cosmos" thread even it is probable you would not be able to understand it.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


IOW asswipe your position is all smoke and mirrors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And that's why almost every working biologist in the entire world takes that position. And a few bible bashing IDiots at bible-university and you think otherwise. So what.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 11 2010,10:02

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,09:56)
More projection from the drool-queen
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Have you just learnt a new word? How sweet!
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 11 2010,10:09

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,09:55)
How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe G < claims > that the EF can detect ghosts:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Next we have the “Ghost Hunters” on the SciFi channel. They use the EF- as in first they try to explain phenomenon X via all other non-agency explanations. Only after those attempts have failed, and a pattern is met, do they say the place is haunted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yet he can't give us an example of the EF detecting design in biology despite the fact they can do it on TV.

Har har har.
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 11 2010,10:11

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,10:01)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,09:55)

Too bad that biological community has no idea if the transformations required are even possible via mutational accumulation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And your proof for that is what? Those words? Anything else?
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And all YOU have is to try to bash ID with your ignorance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why don't you wow us all then and give a demonstration of the EF in action.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You couldn't support your position if your life depended on it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The argument has already happened. My "position" is the default. You've already lost, you just don't realise it.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

As for not answering questions- well limpdick tell me-

How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll answer that once you answer how we can test the premise that the bacterial flagellum was intelligently designed?

Also, which bacterial flagellum did you have in mind here? There are many variants. Any one in particular? I'm afraid I don't know what the variant is called that is on the banner at UD.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It isn't in any textbooks. And it isn't in any peer-reviewed paper.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As we've seen from the "cosmos" thread even it is probable you would not be able to understand it.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


IOW asswipe your position is all smoke and mirrors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And that's why almost every working biologist in the entire world takes that position. And a few bible bashing IDiots at bible-university and you think otherwise. So what.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My "proof"= nothing in peer-review.

There isn't any data which demonstrates mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery, new body parts and new body plans.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 11 2010,10:16

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:11)


My "proof"= nothing in peer-review.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What have you read? Given that it's not possible for a single person to keep up with the complete volume of scientific output I have to wonder on what basis you make this claim.

Do you have a team of ID researchers in your basement scouring every journal? Every paper that comes out?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There isn't any data which demonstrates mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery, new body parts and new body plans.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Therefore ID? Even if that were true, how exactly does it help you? Even if it were true, what support does that give ID?

None whatsoever, that's how much.

Ever thought about providing some evidence for *your* position? Knock "Darwinism" as much as you like, it won't help ID one single bit.

So, about that debate. Proved you've even got $10,000 yet? Or still making that empty claim just to avoid having to put up or shut up?
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 11 2010,10:23

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,10:16)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:11)


My "proof"= nothing in peer-review.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What have you read? Given that it's not possible for a single person to keep up with the complete volume of scientific output I have to wonder on what basis you make this claim.

Do you have a team of ID researchers in your basement scouring every journal? Every paper that comes out?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There isn't any data which demonstrates mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery, new body parts and new body plans.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Therefore ID? Even if that were true, how exactly does it help you? Even if it were true, what support does that give ID?

None whatsoever, that's how much.

Ever thought about providing some evidence for *your* position? Knock "Darwinism" as much as you like, it won't help ID one single bit.

So, about that debate. Proved you've even got $10,000 yet? Or still making that empty claim just to avoid having to put up or shut up?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey asshole- If I am wrong then please present the data which demonstrates that.

I have provided plenty of evidence for ID on my blog.

Why can't you grow some balls and leave your protectorate and actually engage the evidence?
Posted by: Badger3k on Mar. 11 2010,10:25

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,10:09)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,09:55)
How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe G < claims > that the EF can detect ghosts:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Next we have the “Ghost Hunters” on the SciFi channel. They use the EF- as in first they try to explain phenomenon X via all other non-agency explanations. Only after those attempts have failed, and a pattern is met, do they say the place is haunted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yet he can't give us an example of the EF detecting design in biology despite the fact they can do it on TV.

Har har har.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Using moronic plumbers who have no clue as to what they are doing as evidence of EF?  Those idiots just start out with the assumption there is a ghost, then look for anything they can twist to conform to their fantasies.  If ghosts are real, those guys wouldn't know one if it bit them on the ass.  All they end up doing is making assertions and scaring themselves, and feeling superior to anyone who isn't in their clique.

Oh, wait, that is like IDiots.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 11 2010,10:26

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,10:09)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,09:55)
How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe G < claims > that the EF can detect ghosts:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Next we have the “Ghost Hunters” on the SciFi channel. They use the EF- as in first they try to explain phenomenon X via all other non-agency explanations. Only after those attempts have failed, and a pattern is met, do they say the place is haunted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yet he can't give us an example of the EF detecting design in biology despite the fact they can do it on TV.

Har har har.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




CSI investigation.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Mar. 11 2010,10:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have provided plenty of evidence for ID on my blog.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then it shouldn't be too much trouble to cut and paste your best example of that evidence.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why can't you grow some balls and leave your protectorate and actually engage the evidence?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Your posts are coming through here without hindrance, Joe. You pre-moderate your own blog. A quick glance doesn't suggest your blog is a suitable venue for a free exchange of ideas.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 11 2010,10:30

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:23)


Hey asshole- If I am wrong then please present the data which demonstrates that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Make a specific claim. It's hard to determine what you are talking about with all the insults.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have provided plenty of evidence for ID on my blog.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So what. Publish or perish. You have said
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And please provide the peer-reviewed paper(s) that support your explanation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

It isn't in any textbooks. And it isn't in any peer-reviewed paper.

IOW asswipe your position is all smoke and mirrors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My "proof"= nothing in peer-review.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link >
All your own words.

And so, by your own standards your "evidence for ID on your blog" is worthless, all smoke and mirrors.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why can't you grow some balls and leave your protectorate and actually engage the evidence?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Probably for the same reason you are too afraid to publish your "evidence" in the same peer reviewed journals.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 11 2010,10:30

Creationists love to control the conversation.
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 11 2010,10:32

Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 11 2010,10:29)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have provided plenty of evidence for ID on my blog.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then it shouldn't be too much trouble to cut and paste your best example of that evidence.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why can't you grow some balls and leave your protectorate and actually engage the evidence?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Your posts are coming through here without hindrance, Joe. You pre-moderate your own blog. A quick glance doesn't suggest your blog is a suitable venue for a free exchange of ideas.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Alan,

It shouldn't be any problem for you to post the best evidence for your position.

Please start with a testable hypothesis for an accumulation of genetic accidents.

As for posting here- just to fight assholes like you.

I posted a new topic and some little faggot edited my words.

IOW this is not the place to exchange ideas...
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 11 2010,10:33

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 11 2010,10:30)
Creationists love to control the conversation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And Richtard loves to be a fucking asshole
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 11 2010,10:33

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:32)
IOW this is not the place to exchange ideas...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I guess it's time for this then

Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 11 2010,10:38

Does peroxide have unfocused rage and loss of cognitive ability as side effects?
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 11 2010,10:38

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,10:33)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:32)
IOW this is not the place to exchange ideas...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I guess it's time for this then

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you going to run away?

That beats actually supporting your nonsensical position...
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 11 2010,10:39

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 11 2010,10:38)
Does peroxide have unfocused rage and loss of cognitive ability as side effects?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that what you are taking?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 11 2010,10:41

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:39)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 11 2010,10:38)
Does peroxide have unfocused rage and loss of cognitive ability as side effects?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that what you are taking?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What you should do is write on a bit of paper "How is the peroxide treatments going" and when you switch over to your other personality he can write the answer. You can then read it at some later date.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 11 2010,10:42

There may be CSI, in your neighbourhood,
Who ya gonna call...?

You should set up a CSI hunting small business like on the 'documentary' I referenced upthread. You may even get to bang Sigourney Weaver or Rick Moranis if you've come out of the closet by then.
Posted by: nmgirl on Mar. 11 2010,10:47

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:32)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 11 2010,10:29)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have provided plenty of evidence for ID on my blog.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then it shouldn't be too much trouble to cut and paste your best example of that evidence.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why can't you grow some balls and leave your protectorate and actually engage the evidence?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Your posts are coming through here without hindrance, Joe. You pre-moderate your own blog. A quick glance doesn't suggest your blog is a suitable venue for a free exchange of ideas.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Alan,

It shouldn't be any problem for you to post the best evidence for your position.

Please start with a testable hypothesis for an accumulation of genetic accidents.

As for posting here- just to fight assholes like you.

I posted a new topic and some little faggot edited my words.

IOW this is not the place to exchange ideas...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


excuse me for butting in on the insult fest here, but isn't lenski's e coli experiment enough for you?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 11 2010,10:49

Duh! someone designed that experiment!
Posted by: JohnW on Mar. 11 2010,10:51

Running totals for JoeG's mid-March "contribution" to this thread:
Posts P = 13
Posts mentioning bottoms P(b) = 6

Prediction: ratio P(b)/P will increase as Joe gets more and more transported by the manly thrust of his argument.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Mar. 11 2010,11:01

I believe, JoeG, that the subject here is "intelligent design," "specified complexity" and all that.

So, JoeG, what is the mathematical definition of "specified complexity."  I can't find it anywhere.  What are the units?  How is it measured?  

For that matter, what is the mathematical definition of "complexity?"  What are its units and how is it measured?

Meyer states that "specified complexity" can not be expressed in terms of "mere" information like Shannon or Kolmogorov.

Should be easy like F=ma or I=E/R.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 11 2010,11:09

Looks like ID Guy is done.

Hey, Joe

Might let you last long enough to give us that demo of the EF.

Perhaps next time.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Mar. 11 2010,11:13

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,11:09)
Looks like ID Guy is done.

Hey, Joe

Might let you last long enough to give us that demo of the EF.

Perhaps next time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't count on it.


Posted by: Louis on Mar. 11 2010,11:16

Clean up in aisle five, please. Clean up in aisle five.

We appear to have a troll spongle spillage in aisel five.

Louis
Posted by: rhmc on Mar. 11 2010,12:32

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,09:29)
Someone asshead said I drive a Dodge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the asshead that said that was you.
Posted by: slpage on Mar. 11 2010,13:03

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:31)
Quote (slpage @ Mar. 02 2010,14:24)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 25 2010,20:14)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 25 2010,20:06)
Tell me, Joe.  Have you ever done a calculation?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He sure has!  < Behold! >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, an aardvark only 202 characters?

Didn't Berlinski count 50,000 character differences between cows and whales?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dr Page proves he is an imbecile.

The definition of an aarvark only has that many characters.

Are you that stupid that you can't even understand what I post?

Do you realize that 13 year olds understand what you cannot?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi Joey,

I see that you - being a scientist and all, what with your degree in electronics engineering - can only respond in  that oh so Christian (or is it still Muslim?) spirit.

You see, Berlinski claimed to have gotten to 50,000 characters that seperate whales from camels.  You got a mere 202 characters that 'define' an aardvark.  

If there are more than 50,000 differences between a whale and a cow, surley there are many more than define each species.

So, this must mean that whales have at the very least nearly 250 times as many characters as aardvarks.

Does that sound right?

Which one of you is correct?
Posted by: slpage on Mar. 11 2010,13:05

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,09:37)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,09:34)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:51)
In the post "Measuring Information/ specified complexity" I used the definition of an aarvark as an example of how to measure specified information to see if complex specified information is present.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And what was the value you determined for the amount of information in a Aardvark?

And is that more or less then the information in a bacterial flagellum?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you really think your ignorance helps your case?

Even if ID is bunk you still couldn't support your position.

I take that bothers you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your response does not in any way appear to remotely address what had been asked of you.

Was your combat wound in Iraq to yiour head?

And why was it not on the news?
Posted by: slpage on Mar. 11 2010,13:07

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:11)
There isn't any data which demonstrates mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery, new body parts and new body plans.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is there any evidence that this can be accomplished by a disembodied unknown "intelligence"?
Posted by: blipey on Mar. 11 2010,18:37

Hey, Joe.

Perhaps you could use this forum to reveal (revelate?) how you would determine the CSI of a river rock from its manufactured copy.

I understand you would have to examine it personally (I have no idea why this is so other than you say it is so, but I'll take you at your word), so what will you be looking for when you examine these two objects personally?

Please be specific.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Mar. 11 2010,19:50

Quote (slpage @ Mar. 11 2010,14:07)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:11)
There isn't any data which demonstrates mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery, new body parts and new body plans.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is there any evidence that this can be accomplished by a disembodied unknown "intelligence"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps disembodied intelligences design disembodied body parts and disembodied body plans. We just can't see them.
Posted by: Richard Simons on Mar. 11 2010,20:41

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:51)
In the post "Measuring Information/ specified complexity" I used the definition of an aarvark as an example of how to measure specified information to see if complex specified information is present.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK. So you've measured the complexity of a particular English language definition of an aardvark. How does that help you determine how much complexity there is in a real beastie? (BTW, I read the post when it first came out. It has not improved with keeping.)
Posted by: Dr.GH on Mar. 11 2010,21:53

And an anxious nation awaits endarkenment, err, entardemission, maybe jerkjissim.

Does it seem that there is a cycle to this bull shit? Do we have enough of the cycle to know its period? Is there a hetro-cycle (not likely, I would predict an off-set homocycle)?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Mar. 11 2010,22:02

Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 11 2010,22:53)
And an anxious nation awaits endarkenment, err, entardemission, maybe jerkjissim.

Does it seem that there is a cycle to this bull shit? Do we have enough of the cycle to know its period? Is there a hetro-cycle (not likely, I would predict an off-set homocycle)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The cycle you're looking for is "tricycle."
Posted by: blipey on Mar. 12 2010,23:02

JoeTard now claims that it is impossible for rocks to be baseball sized!!!  In other news, bread boxes don't exist...

< ID wunderkind destroys the notion of comparative language! >
Posted by: digitus impudicus on Mar. 12 2010,23:04

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:29)
Quote (digitus impudicus @ Mar. 05 2010,23:21)
Joe?

Sweety?

Whatever happened to our GN/GNX discussion?

Is it parked in a tree?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't have a GNX.

And why would I want to discuss my GN with you?

Someone asshead said I drive a Dodge.

I just corrected that nonsense.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you couldn't afford a GNX?

Or did you just drag a regal out of the junkyard and paint it black and slap some labels on it?
Posted by: digitus impudicus on Mar. 12 2010,23:15

Besides Joe, I don't remember saying that you drove a Dodge.  I do remember you muttering something about a Buick GN and responding to that.
Posted by: didymos on Mar. 13 2010,01:14

Quote (blipey @ Mar. 12 2010,21:02)
JoeTard now claims that it is impossible for rocks to be baseball sized!!!  In other news, bread boxes don't exist...

< ID wunderkind destroys the notion of comparative language! >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that the stupidest thing he's ever said? I know it's a crowded field, but daaaaamn that shit is seriously dumb.  Like way dumber than a box of baseball-sized rocks.
Posted by: fnxtr on Mar. 13 2010,01:15

I just watched a couple of episodes of "The Office" and realized that Joe G. is actually Dwight.
Posted by: Tom Ames on Mar. 13 2010,02:27

Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 12 2010,23:15)
I just watched a couple of episodes of "The Office" and realized that Joe G. is actually Dwight.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, he's Gareth Keenan.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 13 2010,07:11

Quote (blipey @ Mar. 12 2010,23:02)
JoeTard now claims that it is impossible for rocks to be baseball sized!!!  In other news, bread boxes don't exist...

< ID wunderkind destroys the notion of comparative language! >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


blipey, I'm so glad that you have the mental shielding needed to engage cakeboy on his blog. You deserve a medal, for sure. That exchange is a tardification classic!
Posted by: Hermagoras on Mar. 13 2010,09:05

Can I say (honestly) how much I like Joe G's "Captain America" avatar?  It actually corresponds to his image of himself: a perfect patriot, recipient of Super-Soldier Serum, person at the maximum of human potential.  This is a person who thinks, without irony, that he's smarter and more American than anybody else.  

I love the avatar, Joe: a perfect complement to your unlimited self-regard.  

MMMMwwwah! XOXOXO
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Mar. 13 2010,09:23

Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 13 2010,10:05)
Can I say (honestly) how much I like Joe G's "Captain America" avatar?  It actually corresponds to his image of himself: a perfect patriot, recipient of Super-Soldier Serum, person at the maximum of human potential.  This is a person who thinks, without irony, that he's smarter and more American than anybody else.  

I love the avatar, Joe: a perfect complement to your unlimited self-regard.  

MMMMwwwah! XOXOXO
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The avatar captures his cartoonish essence.

(Contra the inherent dignity of a University 'reciprocating flare' midrange horn, circa 1952.)
Posted by: bfish on Mar. 13 2010,09:25

Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 13 2010,07:05)
Can I say (honestly) how much I like Joe G's "Captain America" avatar?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that what it is?

I thought it was his Ass Hat.
Posted by: Zachriel on Mar. 13 2010,11:14

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 13 2010,07:11)
     
Quote (blipey @ Mar. 12 2010,23:02)
JoeTard now claims that it is impossible for rocks to be baseball sized!!!  In other news, bread boxes don't exist...

< ID wunderkind destroys the notion of comparative language! >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


blipey, I'm so glad that you have the mental shielding needed to engage cakeboy on his blog. You deserve a medal, for sure. That exchange is a tardification classic!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow. Just wow.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Joe G >: So how the fuck can a piece of granite be baseball-sized?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, blipey has done us all a great service. We salute his memory.

< >

Oh, he survived? Really? Doesn't seem possible. What he must have endured!
Posted by: olegt on Mar. 13 2010,12:22

< That thread > is a gem.  Joe redefines size to include weight and teaches us how science must be conducted:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Joe: So how the fuck can a piece of granite be baseball-sized?

Thorton: It can be a sphere with a circumference between 9 and 9 1/4 inches, same as an actual baseball.

Joe: Then it would weigh more than a baseball which means it is not "baseball-size".

blipey: If a shoe box is 5" X 8" X 14" and I have a loaf of bread that is 5" X 8" X 14", it is perfectly acceptable to say that the loaf of bread is the size of a shoebox.

Joe: I disagree. Well perhaps it is OK to say that in an informal gathering of imbeciles- perhaps even a formal gathering.  But never in a scientific setting- never when discussing science.  It is OK to say y=the shoe box and loaf of bread have the same dimensions.  But if they do not weigh the same then they are not the same size.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 13 2010,12:42

The debate over baseball-size reminds me of a very long debate with a creationist who denied that a circle is an ellipse.
Posted by: khan on Mar. 13 2010,12:49

Quote (olegt @ Mar. 13 2010,13:22)
< That thread > is a gem.  Joe redefines size to include weight and teaches us how science must be conducted:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Joe: So how the fuck can a piece of granite be baseball-sized?

Thorton: It can be a sphere with a circumference between 9 and 9 1/4 inches, same as an actual baseball.

Joe: Then it would weigh more than a baseball which means it is not "baseball-size".

blipey: If a shoe box is 5" X 8" X 14" and I have a loaf of bread that is 5" X 8" X 14", it is perfectly acceptable to say that the loaf of bread is the size of a shoebox.

Joe: I disagree. Well perhaps it is OK to say that in an informal gathering of imbeciles- perhaps even a formal gathering.  But never in a scientific setting- never when discussing science.  It is OK to say y=the shoe box and loaf of bread have the same dimensions.  But if they do not weigh the same then they are not the same size.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


New sig!
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Mar. 13 2010,13:06

Quote (olegt @ Mar. 13 2010,13:22)
< That thread > is a gem.  Joe redefines size to include weight and teaches us how science must be conducted:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Joe: So how the fuck can a piece of granite be baseball-sized?

Thorton: It can be a sphere with a circumference between 9 and 9 1/4 inches, same as an actual baseball.

Joe: Then it would weigh more than a baseball which means it is not "baseball-size".

blipey: If a shoe box is 5" X 8" X 14" and I have a loaf of bread that is 5" X 8" X 14", it is perfectly acceptable to say that the loaf of bread is the size of a shoebox.

Joe: I disagree. Well perhaps it is OK to say that in an informal gathering of imbeciles- perhaps even a formal gathering.  But never in a scientific setting- never when discussing science.  It is OK to say y=the shoe box and loaf of bread have the same dimensions.  But if they do not weigh the same then they are not the same size.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've been wondering about the reciprocal.

Do one kilogram of cake and one kilogram of aardvark weigh the same? I say they can't, because they aren't the same size.

< Cake, boy. >
Posted by: fnxtr on Mar. 13 2010,13:47

"When I use a word... " etc...

Apparently size=mass.  Or maybe density. Or something.

So our sun will still be approximately the same "size" when it becomes a red giant and consumes our planet.

Good to know.

Dwight: humourless, self-important, and completely detached from reality.
Posted by: Zachriel on Mar. 13 2010,14:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Joe G >: So how the fuck can a piece of granite be baseball-sized?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mystery solved! Granite baseball.

<
Click pic for larger image >
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 13 2010,15:25

I dunno, but maybe one shouldn't take baseballs for granite?
Posted by: Badger3k on Mar. 13 2010,15:33

Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 13 2010,14:53)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Joe G >: So how the fuck can a piece of granite be baseball-sized?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mystery solved! Granite baseball.

<
Click pic for larger image >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Silly man - that's obviously a baserockball, probably used by Fred Flintstone when he roamed with the dinosaurs after the Earth was created 6,000 years ago.  Which proves ID, of course!
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Mar. 13 2010,19:25

Off topic - What happened to the forum?  D.O.S. attack?
Posted by: Hermagoras on Mar. 13 2010,20:07

Quote (khan @ Mar. 13 2010,12:49)
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 13 2010,13:22)
< That thread > is a gem.  Joe redefines size to include weight and teaches us how science must be conducted:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Joe: So how the fuck can a piece of granite be baseball-sized?

Thorton: It can be a sphere with a circumference between 9 and 9 1/4 inches, same as an actual baseball.

Joe: Then it would weigh more than a baseball which means it is not "baseball-size".

blipey: If a shoe box is 5" X 8" X 14" and I have a loaf of bread that is 5" X 8" X 14", it is perfectly acceptable to say that the loaf of bread is the size of a shoebox.

Joe: I disagree. Well perhaps it is OK to say that in an informal gathering of imbeciles- perhaps even a formal gathering.  But never in a scientific setting- never when discussing science.  It is OK to say y=the shoe box and loaf of bread have the same dimensions.  But if they do not weigh the same then they are not the same size.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


New sig!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe gives good sig.  khan, I wish I'd seen that before you.
Posted by: olegt on Mar. 13 2010,20:32

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Joe points out places where size=mass and expresses hope that this is a universal phenomenon:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

blipey: In what world does the word "size" mean "weight"?

Joe: In boxing, UFC, wrestling- most sports.  I am sure it has a bearing in mechanics too, as well as electronics.  I am sure in science it is perfectly normal to answer the question of size with that of mass... Size is both.  Educated people have a big word- we use DIMENSIONS- if that is what we wish to convey.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: blipey on Mar. 13 2010,20:51

Quote (olegt @ Mar. 13 2010,20:32)
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Joe points out places where size=mass and expresses hope that this is a universal phenomenon:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

blipey: In what world does the word "size" mean "weight"?

Joe: In boxing, UFC, wrestling- most sports.  I am sure it has a bearing in mechanics too, as well as electronics.  I am sure in science it is perfectly normal to answer the question of size with that of mass... Size is both.  Educated people have a big word- we use DIMENSIONS- if that is what we wish to convey.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course, boxers are sorted by weight class, which Joe attempts to define as a combination of height, weight, and anywhere from 13 - 73% reach?

JoeTard:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The boxer's size is a combo- height/ weight with a little reach thrown in.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Quack on Mar. 14 2010,04:21

Quote (blipey @ Mar. 13 2010,20:51)
 
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 13 2010,20:32)
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Joe points out places where size=mass and expresses hope that this is a universal phenomenon:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

blipey: In what world does the word "size" mean "weight"?

Joe: In boxing, UFC, wrestling- most sports.  I am sure it has a bearing in mechanics too, as well as electronics.  I am sure in science it is perfectly normal to answer the question of size with that of mass... Size is both.  Educated people have a big word- we use DIMENSIONS- if that is what we wish to convey.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course, boxers are sorted by weight class, which Joe attempts to define as a combination of height, weight, and anywhere from 13 - 73% reach?

JoeTard:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The boxer's size is a combo- height/ weight with a little reach thrown in.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seems Joe G over-reached himself this time.
Posted by: didymos on Mar. 14 2010,06:22

Quote (Quack @ Mar. 14 2010,01:21)
Quote (blipey @ Mar. 13 2010,20:51)
   
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 13 2010,20:32)
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Joe points out places where size=mass and expresses hope that this is a universal phenomenon:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

blipey: In what world does the word "size" mean "weight"?

Joe: In boxing, UFC, wrestling- most sports.  I am sure it has a bearing in mechanics too, as well as electronics.  I am sure in science it is perfectly normal to answer the question of size with that of mass... Size is both.  Educated people have a big word- we use DIMENSIONS- if that is what we wish to convey.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course, boxers are sorted by weight class, which Joe attempts to define as a combination of height, weight, and anywhere from 13 - 73% reach?

JoeTard:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The boxer's size is a combo- height/ weight with a little reach thrown in.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seems Joe G over-reached himself this time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What do mean "this time"?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Mar. 14 2010,08:12

Perhaps Joe's conceptual muddle vis size has the same origins as this old joke:

Q: Why are women so bad at measurement?

A: They're constantly told that this is six inches (finger and thumb four inches apart).
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Mar. 14 2010,08:35

To set the record straight, boxers are classified by measuring their CSI. This is accomplished by counting the number of characters contained in their minimal descriptions:

Wiki introductions will do:

Foreman:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
George Edward Foreman (born January 10, 1949) is an American two-time former World Heavyweight Boxing Champion, Olympic gold medalist, and successful entrepreneur.

He became the oldest man ever to become heavyweight boxing champion of the world when, at age 45, he knocked out Michael Moorer, age 26, to reclaim the title he held 20 years earlier. He has been named one of the 25 greatest fighters of all time by Ring magazine. Nicknamed "Big George" he is now a successful businessman and an ordained Christian minister who has his own church.

Foreman has 10 children, and each of his five sons are named George: George Jr., George III, George IV, George V and George VI. His four older sons are distinguished from one another by the nicknames "Monk", "Big Wheel", "Red" and "Little George."

Foreman is ranked #9 on Ring magazine's list of "100 greatest punchers of all time". He is also well-known for the eponymous George Foreman Grill.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ali:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Muhammad Ali (born Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr.; January 17, 1942) is a retired American boxer and three-time World Heavyweight Champion, who is widely considered one of the greatest heavyweight championship boxers of all time. As an amateur, he won a gold medal in the light heavyweight division at the 1960 Summer Olympics in Rome. After turning professional, he went on to become the first boxer to win the lineal heavyweight championship three times.

Originally known as Cassius Clay, Ali changed his name after joining the Nation of Islam in 1964, subsequently converting to Sunni Islam in 1975. In 1967, Ali refused to be inducted into the U.S. military based on his religious beliefs and opposition to the Vietnam War. He was arrested and found guilty on draft evasion charges, stripped of his boxing title, and his boxing license was suspended. He was not imprisoned, but did not fight again for nearly four years while his appeal worked its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it was successful.

Nicknamed "The Greatest", Ali was involved in several historic boxing matches. Notable among these are three with rival Joe Frazier and one with George Foreman, whom he beat by knockout to win the world heavyweight title for the second time. He suffered only five losses (four decisions and one TKO by retirement from the bout) with no draws in his career, while amassing 56 wins (37 knockouts and 19 decisions). Ali was well known for his unorthodox fighting style, which he described as "float like a butterfly, sting like a bee", and employing techniques such as the rope-a-dope. He was also known for his pre-match hype, where he would "trash talk" opponents on television and in person some time before the match, often with rhymes. These personality quips, idioms along with an unorthodox fighting technique made him a cultural icon. In later life, Ali developed Parkinson's disease. In 1999, Ali was crowned "Sportsman of the Century" by Sports Illustrated and "Sports Personality of the Century" by the BBC.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Forman is defined in 936 characters and hence contains a minimum of 4680 bits of CSI. Ali is defined by 2020 characters and hence he contains a minimum of 10100 bits of CSI.

They should never have been in the same ring.
Posted by: Hermagoras on Mar. 14 2010,11:41

< Boxing weight classes >


< MMA weight classes >

Just weight.  No height, no reach.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Mar. 14 2010,12:35

This is the question by Thornton that started it all

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hey Joe,

Suppose I am out hiking and find a really neat rounded granite river rock the size and shape of baseball. How do I calculate the CSI in it, or tell if it has any CSI at all?

I like it so much I hire a master stonemason to make me an identical copy. This requires I draw up a detailed BOM for the material composition, size, shape, etc. plus detailed specifications for the carving instructions. The copy obviously has lots of 'CSI' since it came from a detailed plan, right?

When the copy is done it is absolutely indistinguishable from the original. Then, clumsy me drops the two and gets them mixed up. How can I measure the CSI to tell the naturally occurring original from the highly specified copy?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I've seen Joe G say lots of incredibly stupid things in my day, but having him claim a rock can't be the size of a baseball just to avoid any discussion of measuring CSI has to be at the very top.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Mar. 14 2010,12:51

Joe,

There are many plaster cast copies of Michelangelo's David in existence. They weigh less than the six-ton marble original; solid marble weighs 160 lbs per cubic foot, while plaster weighs 53 lbs per cubic foot.  If I understand you correctly, you are saying that although they are of identical physical dimensions and displace identical volumes of identical shape, plaster-cast David and the original David are NOT the same size. Any one who says otherwise is both an idiot and an asshole.

So, Joe, if a precise plaster cast copy of David is NOT, by your definition, the same size as the original David, how much taller would such a plaster cast David have to be than the actual David to be the same size as the actual David?

(Somehow, this question makes sense to you.)

Show your work.
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 14 2010,13:16

Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 13 2010,13:47)
"When I use a word... " etc...

Apparently size=mass.  Or maybe density. Or something.

So our sun will still be approximately the same "size" when it becomes a red giant and consumes our planet.

Good to know.

Dwight: humourless, self-important, and completely detached from reality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


F: I agree with you... Joe G = Dwight.  

To carry the Office thing further, Dembski = Michael Scot.  Clueless, self-important, thinks he's smart, but he's not.  

BTW Is Angela from teh Office ,FTK or Joy?
Posted by: blipey on Mar. 14 2010,16:27

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 14 2010,12:51)
Joe,

There are many plaster cast copies of Michelangelo's David in existence. They weigh less than the six-ton marble original; solid marble weighs 160 lbs per cubic foot, while plaster weighs 53 lbs per cubic foot.  If I understand you correctly, you are saying that although they are of identical physical dimensions and displace identical volumes of identical shape, plaster-cast David and the original David are NOT the same size. Any one who says otherwise is both an idiot and an asshole.

So, Joe, if a precise plaster cast copy of David is NOT, by your definition, the same size as the original David, how much taller would such a plaster cast David have to be than the actual David to be the same size as the actual David?

(Somehow, this question makes sense to you.)

Show your work.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I point out the first bold passage to predict Joe's answer:

"You couldn't understand what a 13 year old understands, asshole".

I point out the second bold passage as evidence for POtW!!!
Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 14 2010,16:52

Presumably, a plaster replica of David would be as small as the original.
Posted by: Zarquon on Mar. 14 2010,19:14

Is someone going to ask Joe which is heavier, a pound of feathers or a pound of lead?
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 14 2010,19:37

It probably depends on how compressed each of them is at the time.
Posted by: Keelyn on Mar. 14 2010,20:50

I think the problem here is that Joe G's family tree doesn't have any branches in it. Just when I thought no one could be more stupid than Byers and IBelieveInBullshitandFairytales, I accidentally stumble onto this head full of spaghetti and meatballs. It's a great comedy routine, Joe. Keep it up.
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 14 2010,22:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I accidentally stumble onto this head full of spaghetti and meatballs
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In that case, pasta la vista!
Posted by: blipey on Mar. 15 2010,20:51

< JoeTard: >  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ya see Throton said it was a baseball-sized rock.

Yet that doesn't make any sense.

A piece of granite with the circumferance of a baseball would weigh much more.

And a piece of granite that weighed the same as a baseball would be smaller.

So how the fuck can a piece of granite be baseball-sized?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Later JoeTard: >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hail could be golf-ball sized.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: fnxtr on Mar. 15 2010,21:27

That must be because

SGgolfball = 0.91*




*&#961 is rho in html 4.0 but doesn't work here, apparently.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 16 2010,15:33

Tardgasm over, but boy is he cranky now over at 'intelligent reasoning'. You're supposed to cuddle or roll over and go to sleep, Joe.
Posted by: blipey on Mar. 16 2010,16:21

In his hurry to derail any effort to use CSI to do anything at all, Joe < forgets that ice floats and golf balls sink. >

Because, of course, they aren't the same size.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 16 2010,16:27

He tries to sneak a bit of YEC apologetics into the post before...
Posted by: JohnW on Mar. 16 2010,16:53

Anyone looking for a sig?

< Joe G >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hail is made out of water?

Are you really that stupid?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Dr.GH on Mar. 16 2010,16:55

It would be sad if Joey were not such an obnoxious scum-bag.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Mar. 16 2010,17:10

Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 16 2010,22:53)
Anyone looking for a sig?

< Joe G >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hail is made out of water?

Are you really that stupid?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I call dibs on that one!
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 16 2010,17:21

Man, that whole thread is a stinking heap! I hope somebody has archived it so that it can be read at Joe's funeral.

I particularly liked his last comment (my edits)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not to be bothered by facts and refutations clownie cakeboy continues to flail away...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: carlsonjok on Mar. 16 2010,17:36

Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 16 2010,16:53)
Anyone looking for a sig?

< Joe G >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hail is made out of water?

Are you really that stupid?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My working theory is that Joe doesn't necessarily believe in ID/Creationism because of his extensive study of the subject.. He just believes the opposite of what you pointy-headed, librul, intamalekshuls believe.  

I am fairly certain that you could, in the space of one comment string get Joe to argue against A=B and, later on, to argue against A != B.  I'm just too lazy to attempt it.
Posted by: blipey on Mar. 16 2010,17:57

Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 16 2010,17:36)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 16 2010,16:53)
Anyone looking for a sig?

< Joe G >:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hail is made out of water?

Are you really that stupid?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My working theory is that Joe doesn't necessarily believe in ID/Creationism because of his extensive study of the subject.. He just believes the opposite of what you pointy-headed, librul, intamalekshuls believe.  

I am fairly certain that you could, in the space of one comment string get Joe to argue against A=B and, later on, to argue against A != B.  I'm just too lazy to attempt it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have to try too hard, but I understand having better things to do.  Speaking of which, I'm off to have < one of these >
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Mar. 16 2010,18:13

Quote (blipey @ Mar. 16 2010,23:57)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 16 2010,17:36)
   
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 16 2010,16:53)
Anyone looking for a sig?

< Joe G >:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hail is made out of water?

Are you really that stupid?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My working theory is that Joe doesn't necessarily believe in ID/Creationism because of his extensive study of the subject.. He just believes the opposite of what you pointy-headed, librul, intamalekshuls believe.  

I am fairly certain that you could, in the space of one comment string get Joe to argue against A=B and, later on, to argue against A != B.  I'm just too lazy to attempt it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have to try too hard, but I understand having better things to do.  Speaking of which, I'm off to have < one of these >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pussy beer! I won't go for anything under 7.5°*





*except Guiness, but hey, whatcha gonna do?
Posted by: Aardvark on Mar. 16 2010,18:35

Joe's odour explained:


Posted by: Dr.GH on Mar. 17 2010,00:09

Quote (blipey @ Mar. 16 2010,15:57)
 Speaking of which, I'm off to have < one of these >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One? You Pwewing Gob? One?

Well, alright. Have a second one on me.
Posted by: blipey on Mar. 17 2010,14:12

Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 17 2010,00:09)
Quote (blipey @ Mar. 16 2010,15:57)
 Speaking of which, I'm off to have < one of these >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One? You Pwewing Gob? One?

Well, alright. Have a second one on me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I also had < one of these > and < one of these. >  I must say, I'd rate the O'Fallon a little higher--a 92 IMO.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Mar. 17 2010,21:28

Quote (blipey @ Mar. 16 2010,18:57)
I understand having better things to do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Better things to do?

*picks nose and eats it.*

Yup.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Mar. 18 2010,20:21

Dang, he came back and I was too busy at work.

Oh well, he's just a great steaming pile of putrid pachyderm pustulance who's too scared to answer a simple question like 'how to calculate CSI?'.

I guess the fact that Dembski can't answer it either shouldn't inspire to suggest that such a pitiful example of the misery of the human condition could answer such a simple little question.

I guess fame and fortune will never amass to Joe, for he lost all the money he was going to use for research in buying up Grand Nationals when he heard they were 'destined to be a classic'.

So very, very sad.

Why Joe, I had such high hope for you, being the expert in ID and all and lying at the feet (ahem) of the master (in baiting), would explain such an absurdly simple concept as 'how do you calculate specified complexity?'
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 29 2010,11:22

Quote (blipey @ Mar. 16 2010,16:21)
In his hurry to derail any effort to use CSI to do anything at all, Joe < forgets that ice floats and golf balls sink. >

Because, of course, they aren't the same size.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< floating golf balls >

Why does clownie think its ignorance is a refutation?
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 29 2010,11:23

Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 16 2010,16:53)
Anyone looking for a sig?

< Joe G >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hail is made out of water?

Are you really that stupid?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hail is made out of ice.

Rain is water.

Retardation runs deep at atbc...
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 29 2010,11:25

Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 18 2010,20:21)
Dang, he came back and I was too busy at work.

Oh well, he's just a great steaming pile of putrid pachyderm pustulance who's too scared to answer a simple question like 'how to calculate CSI?'.

I guess the fact that Dembski can't answer it either shouldn't inspire to suggest that such a pitiful example of the misery of the human condition could answer such a simple little question.

I guess fame and fortune will never amass to Joe, for he lost all the money he was going to use for research in buying up Grand Nationals when he heard they were 'destined to be a classic'.

So very, very sad.

Why Joe, I had such high hope for you, being the expert in ID and all and lying at the feet (ahem) of the master (in baiting), would explain such an absurdly simple concept as 'how do you calculate specified complexity?'
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't calculate CSI you measure it.

Well you measure the specified information to see if CSI is present.
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 29 2010,11:29

Quote (blipey @ Mar. 15 2010,20:51)
< JoeTard: >  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ya see Throton said it was a baseball-sized rock.

Yet that doesn't make any sense.

A piece of granite with the circumferance of a baseball would weigh much more.

And a piece of granite that weighed the same as a baseball would be smaller.

So how the fuck can a piece of granite be baseball-sized?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Later JoeTard: >  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hail could be golf-ball sized.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes hail could be golf ball sized because according to the rules of golf a golf ball just has to meet two requirements:

1- It cannot weigh more than 1.62 OZ.

2- It has to have a diameter of at least 1.68 inches

IOW even a simpleton can understand that hail can be golf ball sized...
Posted by: BillB on Mar. 29 2010,11:35

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,17:23)
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 16 2010,16:53)
Anyone looking for a sig?

< Joe G >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hail is made out of water?

Are you really that stupid?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hail is made out of ice.

Rain is water.

Retardation runs deep at atbc...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ice is water that has frozen, water is a chemical substance composed of hydrogen and oxygen.  Water doesn't stop being water when its temperature drops and it enters a solid phase, equally it doesn't stop being water when it boils (which is why they call it water vapor) - All three phases of the substance are forms of WATER.

Hail is made from water, just like rain.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Mar. 29 2010,11:52

Quote (BillB @ Mar. 29 2010,11:35)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,17:23)
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 16 2010,16:53)
Anyone looking for a sig?

< Joe G >:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hail is made out of water?

Are you really that stupid?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hail is made out of ice.

Rain is water.

Retardation runs deep at atbc...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ice is water that has frozen, water is a chemical substance composed of hydrogen and oxygen.  Water doesn't stop being water when its temperature drops and it enters a solid phase, equally it doesn't stop being water when it boils (which is why they call it water vapor) - All three phases of the substance are forms of WATER.

Hail is made from water, just like rain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No!  It is called steam.  Not the same as water.  Or ice.

QED  (That is latin for "you are a dumbass")
Posted by: BillB on Mar. 29 2010,12:00

Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 29 2010,17:52)
Quote (BillB @ Mar. 29 2010,11:35)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,17:23)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 16 2010,16:53)
Anyone looking for a sig?

< Joe G >:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hail is made out of water?

Are you really that stupid?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hail is made out of ice.

Rain is water.

Retardation runs deep at atbc...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ice is water that has frozen, water is a chemical substance composed of hydrogen and oxygen.  Water doesn't stop being water when its temperature drops and it enters a solid phase, equally it doesn't stop being water when it boils (which is why they call it water vapor) - All three phases of the substance are forms of WATER.

Hail is made from water, just like rain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No!  It is called steam.  Not the same as water.  Or ice.

QED  (That is latin for "you are a dumbass")
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


wikipedia:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Water is a ubiquitous chemical substance that is composed of hydrogen and oxygen and is vital for all known forms of life.[1]

In typical usage, water refers only to its liquid form or state, but the substance also has a solid state, ice, and a gaseous state, water vapor or steam. Water covers 71% of the Earth's surface.[2] On Earth, it is found mostly in oceans and other large water bodies, with 1.6% of water below ground in aquifers and 0.001% in the air as vapor, clouds (formed of solid and liquid water particles suspended in air), and precipitation.[3] Oceans hold 97% of surface water, glaciers and polar ice caps 2.4%, and other land surface water such as rivers, lakes and ponds 0.6%. A very small amount of the Earth's water is contained within biological bodies and manufactured products.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Louis on Mar. 29 2010,12:07

Joe G's maintenance of his prescribed medication regime seems to have dropped off again. Also, we seem to have Skeptic Obliviot back on the other thread, morphing names to avoid his restriction to the BW. Can GoP and AFD truly be far behind we ask ourselves? An FTK revisit and flounce should soon follow.

Louis
Posted by: OgreMkV on Mar. 29 2010,12:14

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,11:25)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 18 2010,20:21)
Dang, he came back and I was too busy at work.

Oh well, he's just a great steaming pile of putrid pachyderm pustulance who's too scared to answer a simple question like 'how to calculate CSI?'.

I guess the fact that Dembski can't answer it either shouldn't inspire to suggest that such a pitiful example of the misery of the human condition could answer such a simple little question.

I guess fame and fortune will never amass to Joe, for he lost all the money he was going to use for research in buying up Grand Nationals when he heard they were 'destined to be a classic'.

So very, very sad.

Why Joe, I had such high hope for you, being the expert in ID and all and lying at the feet (ahem) of the master (in baiting), would explain such an absurdly simple concept as 'how do you calculate specified complexity?'
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't calculate CSI you measure it.

Well you measure the specified information to see if CSI is present.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Excellent.  What device do we use to measure the specified information?  What units is specified information measured in?

Pick any three objects, organisms, or material structures and measure their specified information.  Please explain why you measured them that way and why the results are as they are.

kthnx
Posted by: ppb on Mar. 29 2010,12:17

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,12:25)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 18 2010,20:21)
Dang, he came back and I was too busy at work.

Oh well, he's just a great steaming pile of putrid pachyderm pustulance who's too scared to answer a simple question like 'how to calculate CSI?'.

I guess the fact that Dembski can't answer it either shouldn't inspire to suggest that such a pitiful example of the misery of the human condition could answer such a simple little question.

I guess fame and fortune will never amass to Joe, for he lost all the money he was going to use for research in buying up Grand Nationals when he heard they were 'destined to be a classic'.

So very, very sad.

Why Joe, I had such high hope for you, being the expert in ID and all and lying at the feet (ahem) of the master (in baiting), would explain such an absurdly simple concept as 'how do you calculate specified complexity?'
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't calculate CSI you measure it.

Well you measure the specified information to see if CSI is present.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Measure it or calculate it, whatever the hell you're supposed to do, you still can't show us you can do anything with it.

ETA: spelling
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 29 2010,12:27

Quote (ppb @ Mar. 29 2010,17:17)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,12:25)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 18 2010,20:21)
Dang, he came back and I was too busy at work.

Oh well, he's just a great steaming pile of putrid pachyderm pustulance who's too scared to answer a simple question like 'how to calculate CSI?'.

I guess the fact that Dembski can't answer it either shouldn't inspire to suggest that such a pitiful example of the misery of the human condition could answer such a simple little question.

I guess fame and fortune will never amass to Joe, for he lost all the money he was going to use for research in buying up Grand Nationals when he heard they were 'destined to be a classic'.

So very, very sad.

Why Joe, I had such high hope for you, being the expert in ID and all and lying at the feet (ahem) of the master (in baiting), would explain such an absurdly simple concept as 'how do you calculate specified complexity?'
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't calculate CSI you measure it.

Well you measure the specified information to see if CSI is present.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Measure it or calculate it, whatever the hell your supposed to do, you still can't show us you can do anything with it because it is utter meaningless wank, unlike genuine information theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fixed that for you.

;-)

Louis
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 29 2010,12:58

Quote (BillB @ Mar. 29 2010,11:35)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,17:23)
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 16 2010,16:53)
Anyone looking for a sig?

< Joe G >:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hail is made out of water?

Are you really that stupid?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hail is made out of ice.

Rain is water.

Retardation runs deep at atbc...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ice is water that has frozen, water is a chemical substance composed of hydrogen and oxygen.  Water doesn't stop being water when its temperature drops and it enters a solid phase, equally it doesn't stop being water when it boils (which is why they call it water vapor) - All three phases of the substance are forms of WATER.

Hail is made from water, just like rain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Water is a liquid.

Hail is not a liquid, is it?
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 29 2010,13:00

Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 29 2010,12:14)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,11:25)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 18 2010,20:21)
Dang, he came back and I was too busy at work.

Oh well, he's just a great steaming pile of putrid pachyderm pustulance who's too scared to answer a simple question like 'how to calculate CSI?'.

I guess the fact that Dembski can't answer it either shouldn't inspire to suggest that such a pitiful example of the misery of the human condition could answer such a simple little question.

I guess fame and fortune will never amass to Joe, for he lost all the money he was going to use for research in buying up Grand Nationals when he heard they were 'destined to be a classic'.

So very, very sad.

Why Joe, I had such high hope for you, being the expert in ID and all and lying at the feet (ahem) of the master (in baiting), would explain such an absurdly simple concept as 'how do you calculate specified complexity?'
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't calculate CSI you measure it.

Well you measure the specified information to see if CSI is present.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Excellent.  What device do we use to measure the specified information?  What units is specified information measured in?

Pick any three objects, organisms, or material structures and measure their specified information.  Please explain why you measured them that way and why the results are as they are.

kthnx
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< measuring information/ specified complexity >

And if you have something to say then post it on my blog.

This forum isn't a place for a discussion.
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 29 2010,13:02

Quote (BillB @ Mar. 29 2010,11:35)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,17:23)
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 16 2010,16:53)
Anyone looking for a sig?

< Joe G >:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hail is made out of water?

Are you really that stupid?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hail is made out of ice.

Rain is water.

Retardation runs deep at atbc...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ice is water that has frozen, water is a chemical substance composed of hydrogen and oxygen.  Water doesn't stop being water when its temperature drops and it enters a solid phase, equally it doesn't stop being water when it boils (which is why they call it water vapor) - All three phases of the substance are forms of WATER.

Hail is made from water, just like rain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK let me hit you with a water balloon- liquid water.

Then let me take an ice ball and hit you with that.

I bet you will be able to tell the difference- or maybe not as you are brain-dead...
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 29 2010,13:04

Quote (ppb @ Mar. 29 2010,12:17)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,12:25)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 18 2010,20:21)
Dang, he came back and I was too busy at work.

Oh well, he's just a great steaming pile of putrid pachyderm pustulance who's too scared to answer a simple question like 'how to calculate CSI?'.

I guess the fact that Dembski can't answer it either shouldn't inspire to suggest that such a pitiful example of the misery of the human condition could answer such a simple little question.

I guess fame and fortune will never amass to Joe, for he lost all the money he was going to use for research in buying up Grand Nationals when he heard they were 'destined to be a classic'.

So very, very sad.

Why Joe, I had such high hope for you, being the expert in ID and all and lying at the feet (ahem) of the master (in baiting), would explain such an absurdly simple concept as 'how do you calculate specified complexity?'
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't calculate CSI you measure it.

Well you measure the specified information to see if CSI is present.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Measure it or calculate it, whatever the hell you're supposed to do, you still can't show us you can do anything with it.

ETA: spelling
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Information Technology assface.

You couldn't have it without CSI.

Communication- couldn't have it without specified information.

IOW assface you can't do anything without it.
Posted by: ppb on Mar. 29 2010,13:05

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,13:58)
Quote (BillB @ Mar. 29 2010,11:35)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,17:23)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 16 2010,16:53)
Anyone looking for a sig?

< Joe G >:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hail is made out of water?

Are you really that stupid?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hail is made out of ice.

Rain is water.

Retardation runs deep at atbc...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ice is water that has frozen, water is a chemical substance composed of hydrogen and oxygen.  Water doesn't stop being water when its temperature drops and it enters a solid phase, equally it doesn't stop being water when it boils (which is why they call it water vapor) - All three phases of the substance are forms of WATER.

Hail is made from water, just like rain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Water is a liquid.

Hail is not a liquid, is it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Water is a molecule.  Liquid is a state.  Understand the difference?

Edited for clarity.
Posted by: Wolfhound on Mar. 29 2010,13:17

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,14:00)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 29 2010,12:14)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,11:25)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 18 2010,20:21)
Dang, he came back and I was too busy at work.

Oh well, he's just a great steaming pile of putrid pachyderm pustulance who's too scared to answer a simple question like 'how to calculate CSI?'.

I guess the fact that Dembski can't answer it either shouldn't inspire to suggest that such a pitiful example of the misery of the human condition could answer such a simple little question.

I guess fame and fortune will never amass to Joe, for he lost all the money he was going to use for research in buying up Grand Nationals when he heard they were 'destined to be a classic'.

So very, very sad.

Why Joe, I had such high hope for you, being the expert in ID and all and lying at the feet (ahem) of the master (in baiting), would explain such an absurdly simple concept as 'how do you calculate specified complexity?'
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't calculate CSI you measure it.

Well you measure the specified information to see if CSI is present.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Excellent.  What device do we use to measure the specified information?  What units is specified information measured in?

Pick any three objects, organisms, or material structures and measure their specified information.  Please explain why you measured them that way and why the results are as they are.

kthnx
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< measuring information/ specified complexity >

And if you have something to say then post it on my blog.

This forum isn't a place for a discussion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, indeed, so please feel free to fuck off.  Kaythnxbye!
Posted by: ppb on Mar. 29 2010,13:18

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,14:00)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 29 2010,12:14)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,11:25)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 18 2010,20:21)
Dang, he came back and I was too busy at work.

Oh well, he's just a great steaming pile of putrid pachyderm pustulance who's too scared to answer a simple question like 'how to calculate CSI?'.

I guess the fact that Dembski can't answer it either shouldn't inspire to suggest that such a pitiful example of the misery of the human condition could answer such a simple little question.

I guess fame and fortune will never amass to Joe, for he lost all the money he was going to use for research in buying up Grand Nationals when he heard they were 'destined to be a classic'.

So very, very sad.

Why Joe, I had such high hope for you, being the expert in ID and all and lying at the feet (ahem) of the master (in baiting), would explain such an absurdly simple concept as 'how do you calculate specified complexity?'
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't calculate CSI you measure it.

Well you measure the specified information to see if CSI is present.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Excellent.  What device do we use to measure the specified information?  What units is specified information measured in?

Pick any three objects, organisms, or material structures and measure their specified information.  Please explain why you measured them that way and why the results are as they are.

kthnx
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< measuring information/ specified complexity >

And if you have something to say then post it on my blog.

This forum isn't a place for a discussion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that the best example of CSI measurement you can come up with?  Doing a word count of a dictionary definition?  How does that tell you anything about anything?
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 29 2010,13:37

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,18:00)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 29 2010,12:14)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,11:25)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 18 2010,20:21)
Dang, he came back and I was too busy at work.

Oh well, he's just a great steaming pile of putrid pachyderm pustulance who's too scared to answer a simple question like 'how to calculate CSI?'.

I guess the fact that Dembski can't answer it either shouldn't inspire to suggest that such a pitiful example of the misery of the human condition could answer such a simple little question.

I guess fame and fortune will never amass to Joe, for he lost all the money he was going to use for research in buying up Grand Nationals when he heard they were 'destined to be a classic'.

So very, very sad.

Why Joe, I had such high hope for you, being the expert in ID and all and lying at the feet (ahem) of the master (in baiting), would explain such an absurdly simple concept as 'how do you calculate specified complexity?'
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't calculate CSI you measure it.

Well you measure the specified information to see if CSI is present.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Excellent.  What device do we use to measure the specified information?  What units is specified information measured in?

Pick any three objects, organisms, or material structures and measure their specified information.  Please explain why you measured them that way and why the results are as they are.

kthnx
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< measuring information/ specified complexity >

And if you have something to say then post it on my blog.

This forum isn't a place for a discussion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Looks like the impotent little ID puppy is afraid of anywhere he can't ban people for disagreeing with him. Pity the puppy for he is stupid.

Come on puppy, bark for the big boys.

Louis
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Mar. 29 2010,13:39

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,13:58)
Quote (BillB @ Mar. 29 2010,11:35)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,17:23)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 16 2010,16:53)
Anyone looking for a sig?

< Joe G >:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hail is made out of water?

Are you really that stupid?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hail is made out of ice.

Rain is water.

Retardation runs deep at atbc...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ice is water that has frozen, water is a chemical substance composed of hydrogen and oxygen.  Water doesn't stop being water when its temperature drops and it enters a solid phase, equally it doesn't stop being water when it boils (which is why they call it water vapor) - All three phases of the substance are forms of WATER.

Hail is made from water, just like rain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Water is a liquid.

Hail is not a liquid, is it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OMFG.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 29 2010,13:41

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,13:00)
*snip*
And if you have something to say then post it on my blog.

This forum isn't a place for a discussion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes indeed. One of the problems here is that all the comments get through and there is no pre-moderation.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 29 2010,13:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hail is made from water, just like rain.

Water is a liquid.

Hail is not a liquid, is it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Undistributed muddle.
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 29 2010,14:04

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 29 2010,18:41)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,13:00)
*snip*
And if you have something to say then post it on my blog.

This forum isn't a place for a discussion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes indeed. One of the problems here is that all the comments get through and there is no pre-moderation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And dissent doesn't get you banned. Nor does Joe control the ban hammer. Both of which, you have to admit, are really big barriers to {ahem} "discussion". Because Joe is clearly alllllllll about intellectual discourse.

Mind you, for all his faults, poking him with a stick and watching him froth at the mouth is hilarious. There's a scence in the movie Snatch where the character Brick Top is trying to train a dog for illegal dog fighting. The dog is in a cage and Brick Top is poking the poor pooch very hard with a walking stick. The comment he makes about this dog is "...Shits himself when you put him in the ring, but poke him with a stick, you watch his bollocks grow."

This is very much like our Joey. He's fuck all use in an actual argument, but if you poke him a few times with a few comments he acts as though he's got a pair of balls. Pity it's just an act on his part, as he is the very epitome of a noisy little nutless wonder.

Louis
Posted by: keiths on Mar. 29 2010,14:14

Quote (Louis @ Mar. 29 2010,12:04)
...he is the very epitome of a noisy little nutless wonder.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But he's our noisy little nutless wonder, and by Allah, we love him.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Mar. 29 2010,14:20

Quote (BillB @ Mar. 29 2010,12:00)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 29 2010,17:52)
   
Quote (BillB @ Mar. 29 2010,11:35)
 
Ice is water that has frozen, water is a chemical substance composed of hydrogen and oxygen.  Water doesn't stop being water when its temperature drops and it enters a solid phase, equally it doesn't stop being water when it boils (which is why they call it water vapor) - All three phases of the substance are forms of WATER.

Hail is made from water, just like rain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No!  It is called steam.  Not the same as water.  Or ice.

QED  (That is latin for "you are a dumbass")
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


wikipedia:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Water is a ubiquitous chemical substance that is composed of hydrogen and oxygen and is vital for all known forms of life.[1]

In typical usage, water refers only to its liquid form or state, but the substance also has a solid state, ice, and a gaseous state, water vapor or steam. Water covers 71% of the Earth's surface.[2] On Earth, it is found mostly in oceans and other large water bodies, with 1.6% of water below ground in aquifers and 0.001% in the air as vapor, clouds (formed of solid and liquid water particles suspended in air), and precipitation.[3] Oceans hold 97% of surface water, glaciers and polar ice caps 2.4%, and other land surface water such as rivers, lakes and ponds 0.6%. A very small amount of the Earth's water is contained within biological bodies and manufactured products.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, there is your problem. You are quoting wiki-dope-ea.  You also have a problem with reading comprehension. Note that it says water vapor or steam.  "Or" means it can't be both, dipshit.  Therefore, steam is not water.

It is no wonder evolution is a dead theory, with jokes like you advocating for it.
Posted by: Tony M Nyphot on Mar. 29 2010,14:50

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,11:58)
 
Quote (BillB @ Mar. 29 2010,11:35)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,17:23)
   
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 16 2010,16:53)
Anyone looking for a sig?

< Joe G >:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hail is made out of water?

Are you really that stupid?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hail is made out of ice.

Rain is water.

Retardation runs deep at atbc...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ice is water that has frozen, water is a chemical substance composed of hydrogen and oxygen.  Water doesn't stop being water when its temperature drops and it enters a solid phase, equally it doesn't stop being water when it boils (which is why they call it water vapor) - All three phases of the substance are forms of WATER.

Hail is made from water, just like rain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Water is a liquid.

Hail is not a liquid, is it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apparently Joe didn't make it out of < 3rd Grade. >

Is it really possible someone can be this persistently stupid and impervious to learning rudimentary knowledge.

Joe G has to be the most complex (and specific) Poe ever perpetrated anywhere.
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 29 2010,14:52

Quote (keiths @ Mar. 29 2010,19:14)
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 29 2010,12:04)
...he is the very epitome of a noisy little nutless wonder.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But he's our noisy little nutless wonder, and by Allah, we love him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


By Brahma surely?

;-)

Louis
Posted by: Tony M Nyphot on Mar. 29 2010,14:58

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,12:00)

< measuring information/ specified complexity >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey Poe-Joe,

I read your post. I have a simple question for clarification.

Was the CSI you measured in your example contained in :
  1. the word "aardvark",
  2. the definition of that word,
  3. or in an actual aardvark?
Posted by: BillB on Mar. 29 2010,15:37

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 29 2010,19:54)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hail is made from water, just like rain.

Water is a liquid.

Hail is not a liquid, is it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Undistributed muddle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is butter a liquid?
Is cement a liquid?
Is glass a liquid?
And what about pitch?

......

At what temperature is water a liquid?
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 29 2010,15:40

Does it really matter all that much if "water" is defined as the substance H2O or as the substance H2O in its liquid state?
Posted by: JohnW on Mar. 29 2010,15:40

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Mar. 29 2010,12:50)
Apparently Joe didn't make it out of < 3rd Grade. >

Is it really possible someone can be this persistently stupid and impervious to learning rudimentary knowledge.

Joe G has to be the most complex (and specific) Poe ever perpetrated anywhere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Before I took up tardwatching, I'd have said "No.  No-one could be that stupid.  They'd have forgotten to breathe by now."

Now, I'm not so sure.  I think "stupid" is more plausible than "Poe".  And I feel more optimistic for the future of humanity to think there are a few people this stupid, than to think there are a few people who get their jollies pretending to be this stupid.
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 29 2010,15:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At what temperature is water a liquid?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Depends on the pressure. ;)
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 29 2010,15:52

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 29 2010,20:41)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At what temperature is water a liquid?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Depends on the pressure. ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And on any solutes or particulates it might contain. Frankly it's all too complicated for Joe the Junkyard dog. I suggest he goes for a lie down.

Louis
Posted by: OgreMkV on Mar. 29 2010,17:46

Joe... I'll use small words.

Aardvark is not the animal.
Aardvark is random string of symbols used to represent the animal.
Aardvark is a poor way of identifying an animal species and an even poorer way of defining an individual animal.

To properly define the species, you need the scientific name of the animal species.

To properly define an individual, you need a very specific set of characters that uniquely identify that animal as compared to any other individual that may look like it.

So when you count the letters in the word, you're just wanking.

BTW: I already digested and hocked up your blog post.  It was stupid (as shown above).

So WHAT DO YOU MEASURE and WHAT UNITS DO YOU USE?

Or maybe you don't understand the word 'measure'???
Posted by: fnxtr on Mar. 29 2010,17:46

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Mar. 29 2010,12:58)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,12:00)

< measuring information/ specified complexity >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey Poe-Joe,

I read your post. I have a simple question for clarification.

Was the CSI you measured in your example contained in :
  1. the word "aardvark",
  2. the definition of that word,
  3. or in an actual aardvark?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is there more CSI if the definition is in French? German? Czech?  

What's the CSI in ASL, GI Joe?

Is it different from the CSI in English?

Why, or why not? How did you measure/calculate/invent it?

Does a bigger aardvark have more CSI than a smaller one? How about age? Does age affect CSI? What if one's just eaten a big pile of ants, and another hasn't eaten in 3 days? How much more CSI is in the full one?
Posted by: JohnW on Mar. 29 2010,18:30

Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 29 2010,15:46)
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Mar. 29 2010,12:58)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,12:00)

< measuring information/ specified complexity >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey Poe-Joe,

I read your post. I have a simple question for clarification.

Was the CSI you measured in your example contained in :
  1. the word "aardvark",
  2. the definition of that word,
  3. or in an actual aardvark?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is there more CSI if the definition is in French? German? Czech?  

What's the CSI in ASL, GI Joe?

Is it different from the CSI in English?

Why, or why not? How did you measure/calculate/invent it?

Does a bigger aardvark have more CSI than a smaller one? How about age? Does age affect CSI? What if one's just eaten a big pile of ants, and another hasn't eaten in 3 days? How much more CSI is in the full one?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What if we freeze the aardvark?
Posted by: blipey on Mar. 29 2010,19:19

OOOOOOHHHHH!!!  Can I play, too?

JoeTard, do you breathe air?  If so, do you breathe it both inside and outside?  In France and in New Hampshire?  In a submarine?  On Mt. McKinley?

How 'bout it, Joe?  Air?  Do you breathe it?
Posted by: Cubist on Mar. 29 2010,20:56

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,13:00)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 29 2010,12:14)
What device do we use to measure the specified information?  What units is specified information measured in?

Pick any three objects, organisms, or material structures and measure their specified information.  Please explain why you measured them that way and why the results are as they are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< measuring information/ specified complexity >

And if you have something to say then post it on my blog.

This forum isn't a place for a discussion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi, Joe! I read that blog-post of yours, and I have submitted a reply. Blogger thought it was too long for one reply, so I had to submit it in two parts, both of which await your approval before they can see the light of blog, I mean "day".
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Mar. 29 2010,21:25

Hi John,
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 29 2010,18:30)

What if we freeze the aardvark?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I broke out laughing so hard I had to try to explain it to her.

I think I failed miserably.

I still think it was a great comment.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Mar. 29 2010,23:48

Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 29 2010,18:30)

What if we freeze the aardvark?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey! At the aardvark triple point, we have, simultaneously, liquid aardvark, solid aardvark, and a snootful of aardvark gas.
Barkeep - gimme a pint of that there aardvark!
Posted by: Tony M Nyphot on Mar. 30 2010,00:55

Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 29 2010,18:30)

What if we freeze the aardvark?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That made me LOL as well...and brings another question to mind:

If we bake an aardvark into a cake and it is not listed with the other ingredients, does the cake have more or less CSI?
Posted by: Badger3k on Mar. 30 2010,02:35

Quote (sledgehammer @ Mar. 29 2010,23:48)
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 29 2010,18:30)

What if we freeze the aardvark?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey! At the aardvark triple point, we have, simultaneously, liquid aardvark, solid aardvark, and a snootful of aardvark gas.
Barkeep - gimme a pint of that there aardvark!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll pass on the "snootful of aardvark gas" - if it's anything like dog gas (esp when he is behind me), its got to be quite rank.

Although, Liquid Aardvark may be the new Metal Gear character, but mums the word....

(actually, wet aardvark is pretty bad too- just ask Cerebus)
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 30 2010,05:04

Joe,
What size shoe do you take?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Mar. 30 2010,08:49

Quote (sledgehammer @ Mar. 29 2010,23:48)
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 29 2010,18:30)

What if we freeze the aardvark?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey! At the aardvark triple point, we have, simultaneously, liquid aardvark, solid aardvark, and a snootful of aardvark gas.
Barkeep - gimme a pint of that there aardvark!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"I don't care who you are, dat dere is funny"**

** to quote the great philospher.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Mar. 30 2010,08:55

< Aardvark Mitochondrial RNA sequenced >

Now, this isn't the whole aardvark genome, but (from what I read) the aardvark has a unique place in our world.  It's the only living species of the order Tubulidentata.  So the authors sequenced the mitochondrial RNA to help scientists figure out what are the nearest relatives to the aardvark.

Tell you what.  I will publicly apologize to you and the ID movement and write up a post for rational-skeptic.org if you 'Joe' can use CSI to determine what the nearest relative to the aardvark is.  Now, no fair cheating and reading the paper (above) for the answer.  Since I've already given you the science answer, I'll need a very detailed treatment from you (or Dembski or Meyer or Behe) as to what was measured and calculated for each species you compare the aardvark to and why the measurements and calcuation result in the aardvark's position as you describe it.

Go.
Posted by: Cubist on Mar. 30 2010,16:05

JoeG approved my two-part response to his blog post on < measuring information/ specified complexity >. Having never before replied on an IDist-controlled forum, I wondered whether JoeG might unilaterally edit my words; I am happy to say that he did not do that. Yay JoeG!
Posted by: Steverino on Mar. 30 2010,19:24

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 30 2010,05:04)
Joe,
What size shoe do you take?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey! No trick questions!...Let's keep this above board.

(Joe, Sticking up for bro)
Posted by: fnxtr on Mar. 31 2010,01:17

Ahem, that will be quite enough about aardvarks.


Posted by: Hermagoras on Mar. 31 2010,10:28

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 30 2010,05:04)
Joe,
What size shoe do you take?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Between 1 and 3 pounds?
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 31 2010,10:41

No, no, that would have to be in foot-pounds, not just pounds!  :p
Posted by: FreeMason on Mar. 31 2010,11:14

C'mon, this can't be real.

Measuring the information of an aardvark by analyzing the characters in the dictionary definition of aardvark?

He's just having some fun with you folks. Granted that he is dedicated, but that can be a symptom of extreme boredom as well as extreme zealotry.
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 31 2010,11:55

Quote (FreeMason @ Mar. 31 2010,16:14)
C'mon, this can't be real.

Measuring the information of an aardvark by analyzing the characters in the dictionary definition of aardvark?

He's just having some fun with you folks. Granted that he is dedicated, but that can be a symptom of extreme boredom as well as extreme zealotry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Poe's Law. An eternal warning to us all.

Louis
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 31 2010,12:00

Poe's law? Nevermore!
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Mar. 31 2010,18:20

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,11:25)
You don't calculate CSI you measure it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How? What do you use as a meter and what units are they/is it measured in?
Posted by: Badger3k on Mar. 31 2010,20:30

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 31 2010,18:20)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,11:25)
You don't calculate CSI you measure it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How? What do you use as a meter and what units are they/is it measured in?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Iambic pentameter-  measured in Shakespeares.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on April 01 2010,06:33

Joe @ TT:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
IOW if scales, fins and gills are part of what defines fish, and fish are allegedly our ancestors, we should have them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link >.

ROFL.
Posted by: Wolfhound on April 01 2010,06:52

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 01 2010,07:33)
Joe @ TT:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
IOW if scales, fins and gills are part of what defines fish, and fish are allegedly our ancestors, we should have them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link >.

ROFL.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I want my prehensile tail, dammit!   :angry:
Posted by: EyeNoU on April 01 2010,07:32

Quote (Wolfhound @ April 01 2010,06:52)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 01 2010,07:33)
Joe @ TT:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
IOW if scales, fins and gills are part of what defines fish, and fish are allegedly our ancestors, we should have them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link >.

ROFL.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I want my prehensile tail, dammit!   :angry:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think a lot of the posters on this board would like a little tail......
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on April 01 2010,11:56

Quote (EyeNoU @ April 01 2010,07:32)
Quote (Wolfhound @ April 01 2010,06:52)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 01 2010,07:33)
Joe @ TT:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
IOW if scales, fins and gills are part of what defines fish, and fish are allegedly our ancestors, we should have them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link >.

ROFL.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I want my prehensile tail, dammit!   :angry:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think a lot of the posters on this board would like a little tail......
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps Joe could give some tips? I suspect "very little" applies to him in more then one respect.
Posted by: midwifetoad on April 01 2010,12:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Perhaps Joe could give some tips?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If he were a bit more circumspect.
Posted by: Robin on April 01 2010,14:11

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 01 2010,06:33)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe @ TT:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
IOW if scales, fins and gills are part of what defines fish, and fish are allegedly our ancestors, we should have them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link >.

ROFL.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I just can't read more than a few lines from Joe without going into a coma. He's got to be a Poe...has to be. You just can't be this type of ignorant for real.
Posted by: OgreMkV on April 01 2010,19:22

I've been reading the AFdave thread.  If it ends with him announcing himself as a Poe, I will scream, then laugh in relief.  

If joe does so, then he's the worst Poe ever.  I'm still waiting for an answer to my challenge.  I'm guessing him and Dembski are discussing ways to confuse me.  It shouldn't be too hard... all they have to do is talk for a while.
Posted by: Badger3k on April 01 2010,19:38

Quote (Wolfhound @ April 01 2010,06:52)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 01 2010,07:33)
Joe @ TT:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
IOW if scales, fins and gills are part of what defines fish, and fish are allegedly our ancestors, we should have them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link >.

ROFL.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I want my prehensile tail, dammit!   :angry:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, it's not a tail...but it is prehensile!  It's "Mr Elephant"... and it's all thanks to one of those late-night infomercials...

and ID.
;)
Posted by: Wolfhound on April 02 2010,02:40

Quote (Badger3k @ April 01 2010,20:38)
Quote (Wolfhound @ April 01 2010,06:52)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 01 2010,07:33)
Joe @ TT:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
IOW if scales, fins and gills are part of what defines fish, and fish are allegedly our ancestors, we should have them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link >.

ROFL.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I want my prehensile tail, dammit!   :angry:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, it's not a tail...but it is prehensile!  It's "Mr Elephant"... and it's all thanks to one of those late-night infomercials...

and ID.
;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can it cut through a tin can and still slice a tomato?  If I order now, do I get a second Mr Elephant (makes a great gift!) and the Mini Elephant, which I can conveniently carry in my purse for those moments that I really need Mr Elephant but forgot it at home?

Damn, I hope those operators are standing by...
Posted by: Dr.GH on April 02 2010,18:14

Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 30 2010,00:35)
I'll pass on the "snootful of aardvark gas" - if it's anything like dog gas (esp when he is behind me), its got to be quite rank.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was on the water today, and we had two minke whales cruising around the boat for most of the morning. They were often in touching distance. One did a nice roll and dive, and moments later everyone on deck was "impressed" with the power of whale farts. And these were small whales!
Posted by: Joe G on April 03 2010,08:04

Quote (FreeMason @ Mar. 31 2010,11:14)
C'mon, this can't be real.

Measuring the information of an aardvark by analyzing the characters in the dictionary definition of aardvark?

He's just having some fun with you folks. Granted that he is dedicated, but that can be a symptom of extreme boredom as well as extreme zealotry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is false.

Only a complete imbecile would think I was measuring the information of an aardvark by analyzing the characters in the definition.

Definitions are examples of specified information

1-The definition I provided is an example of specified information.

2-I then measured the information contained in that definition.

3- It was an EXAMPLE of how to measure SI to see if CSI is present.

Yes or no- do you understand that?
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on April 03 2010,08:50

Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,08:04)
Quote (FreeMason @ Mar. 31 2010,11:14)
C'mon, this can't be real.

Measuring the information of an aardvark by analyzing the characters in the dictionary definition of aardvark?

He's just having some fun with you folks. Granted that he is dedicated, but that can be a symptom of extreme boredom as well as extreme zealotry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is false.

Only a complete imbecile would think I was measuring the information of an aardvark by analyzing the characters in the definition.

Definitions are examples of specified information

1-The definition I provided is an example of specified information.

2-I then measured the information contained in that definition.

3- It was an EXAMPLE of how to measure SI to see if CSI is present.

Yes or no- do you understand that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I understand but not completely.  I've developed a secret written language (SWL). In my SWL, the definition of "aardvark" is written like this:

gkjassdhjkjyenb

Note that the bold type face is part of the SWL definition. If "gkjassdhjkjyenb" is not bolded, it means "platypus."

How much information is contained in my SWL definition? Does the "aardvark" definition contain more information than the "platypus" definition? Does either definition indicate the presence of CSI?
Posted by: OgreMkV on April 03 2010,08:52

So, how bout that challenge Joe?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on April 03 2010,09:07

Hey Joe! I'm sure you're eager to respond to this:

There are many plaster cast copies of Michelangelo's David in existence. They weigh less than the six-ton marble original; solid marble weighs 160 lbs per cubic foot, while plaster weighs 53 lbs per cubic foot. Per your definition of size, although they are of identical physical dimensions and displace identical volumes of identical shape, plaster-cast David and the original David are NOT the same size.

So, if a precise plaster cast copy of David is not, by your definition, the same size as the original David, how much taller would plaster cast David have to be than actual David to be the same size as actual David?

Show your work.
Posted by: olegt on April 03 2010,12:58

The latest < revelation > from Joe ID guy:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mendel couldn't have proposed a theory of genetic inheritanec if he didn't even use the word genetics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Right.  And Lemaitre could not have proposed the Big Bang theory if he didn't even use the words big bang.
Posted by: Joe G on April 03 2010,14:33

Quote (OgreMkV @ April 03 2010,08:52)
So, how bout that challenge Joe?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am ready-

Any time you want to start posting positive evidence for your position I will read it and respond.
Posted by: Joe G on April 03 2010,14:34

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 03 2010,08:50)
Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,08:04)
 
Quote (FreeMason @ Mar. 31 2010,11:14)
C'mon, this can't be real.

Measuring the information of an aardvark by analyzing the characters in the dictionary definition of aardvark?

He's just having some fun with you folks. Granted that he is dedicated, but that can be a symptom of extreme boredom as well as extreme zealotry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is false.

Only a complete imbecile would think I was measuring the information of an aardvark by analyzing the characters in the definition.

Definitions are examples of specified information

1-The definition I provided is an example of specified information.

2-I then measured the information contained in that definition.

3- It was an EXAMPLE of how to measure SI to see if CSI is present.

Yes or no- do you understand that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I understand but not completely.  I've developed a secret written language (SWL). In my SWL, the definition of "aardvark" is written like this:

gkjassdhjkjyenb

Note that the bold type face is part of the SWL definition. If "gkjassdhjkjyenb" is not bolded, it means "platypus."

How much information is contained in my SWL definition? Does the "aardvark" definition contain more information than the "platypus" definition? Does either definition indicate the presence of CSI?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jim,

Just because you can prove that you are an asshole doesn't mean anything to ID.

Do you understand that?
Posted by: Joe G on April 03 2010,14:36

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 03 2010,09:07)
Hey Joe! I'm sure you're eager to respond to this:

There are many plaster cast copies of Michelangelo's David in existence. They weigh less than the six-ton marble original; solid marble weighs 160 lbs per cubic foot, while plaster weighs 53 lbs per cubic foot. Per your definition of size, although they are of identical physical dimensions and displace identical volumes of identical shape, plaster-cast David and the original David are NOT the same size.

So, if a precise plaster cast copy of David is not, by your definition, the same size as the original David, how much taller would plaster cast David have to be than actual David to be the same size as actual David?

Show your work.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Asshole- it's not my definition of size.

As I said a person's size includes their height and weight.

Do you really think your ignorance is meaningful discourse?
Posted by: OgreMkV on April 03 2010,15:01

I'm not double posting how chicken you are Joe.  Go to the other thread and show us that you know something other than the word 'asshole'.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on April 03 2010,15:12

Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,15:36)
As I said a person's size includes their height and weight.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ok. It would follow that the size of a statue also includes its height and weight.

So, how much taller would plaster David have to be than original David to be the same size as original David?
Posted by: fnxtr on April 03 2010,15:27

Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,12:33)
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 03 2010,08:52)
So, how bout that challenge Joe?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am ready-

Any time you want to start posting positive evidence for your position I will read it and respond.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"I know you are but what am I."

QED.

So, Joe, you're saying you just measured the CSI of the definition of an aardvark?

Okay.

Why?

And you still didn't explain whether or not the CSI is the same in other languages.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on April 03 2010,15:29

Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,14:34)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 03 2010,08:50)
Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,08:04)
 
Quote (FreeMason @ Mar. 31 2010,11:14)
C'mon, this can't be real.

Measuring the information of an aardvark by analyzing the characters in the dictionary definition of aardvark?

He's just having some fun with you folks. Granted that he is dedicated, but that can be a symptom of extreme boredom as well as extreme zealotry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is false.

Only a complete imbecile would think I was measuring the information of an aardvark by analyzing the characters in the definition.

Definitions are examples of specified information

1-The definition I provided is an example of specified information.

2-I then measured the information contained in that definition.

3- It was an EXAMPLE of how to measure SI to see if CSI is present.

Yes or no- do you understand that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I understand but not completely.  I've developed a secret written language (SWL). In my SWL, the definition of "aardvark" is written like this:

gkjassdhjkjyenb

Note that the bold type face is part of the SWL definition. If "gkjassdhjkjyenb" is not bolded, it means "platypus."

How much information is contained in my SWL definition? Does the "aardvark" definition contain more information than the "platypus" definition? Does either definition indicate the presence of CSI?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jim,

Just because you can prove that you are an asshole doesn't mean anything to ID.

Do you understand that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In Joe's little world, the definition of "asshole" is "person who asks questions I can't answer." Which means the world is full of assholes, and I'm in good company.
Posted by: FrankH on April 03 2010,15:33

Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,14:33)
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 03 2010,08:52)
So, how bout that challenge Joe?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I am ready-

Any time you want to start posting positive evidence for your position I will read it and respond.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Have you ever posted "positive evidence for ID" Joe?

I would like to see it.

As for "positive evidence for evolution", I give you this:

< http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/full/nature04637.html >

Yes Joe, this is Rocket Science and yes, it takes study to grasp it.  There are no quick or easy solutions.
Posted by: blipey on April 03 2010,17:24

Hey Joe,

Which has a greater "size":

1.  one cubic foot of granite

or

2.  ten cubic feet of Nerf?

At what dimensions would they have equal "size"?
Posted by: khan on April 03 2010,17:36

How can there even be conversations if no one knows/defines what they/we are talking about?

I've had more satisfying discussions with the cat.
Posted by: OgreMkV on April 03 2010,18:17

AFDave's thread was at least more interesting.  He at least knew how to C&P from other websites.
Posted by: MichaelJ on April 03 2010,21:20

Quote (FrankH @ April 04 2010,06:33)
Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,14:33)
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 03 2010,08:52)
So, how bout that challenge Joe?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I am ready-

Any time you want to start posting positive evidence for your position I will read it and respond.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Have you ever posted "positive evidence for ID" Joe?

I would like to see it.

As for "positive evidence for evolution", I give you this:

< http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/full/nature04637.html >

Yes Joe, this is Rocket Science and yes, it takes study to grasp it.  There are no quick or easy solutions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've just read "The Greatest Show on Earth", Joe should start with that.
Posted by: Reed on April 03 2010,23:33

Quote (MichaelJ @ April 03 2010,19:20)
I've just read "The Greatest Show on Earth", Joe should start with that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I dunno, Larry Gonicks excellent < Cartoon history of the universe > and < Cartoon guide to genetics > might be closer to Joe's level.
Posted by: Henry J on April 04 2010,01:22

Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,07:04)
Quote (FreeMason @ Mar. 31 2010,11:14)
C'mon, this can't be real.

Measuring the information of an aardvark by analyzing the characters in the dictionary definition of aardvark?

He's just having some fun with you folks. Granted that he is dedicated, but that can be a symptom of extreme boredom as well as extreme zealotry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is false.

Only a complete imbecile would think I was measuring the information of an aardvark by analyzing the characters in the definition.

Definitions are examples of specified information

1-The definition I provided is an example of specified information.

2-I then measured the information contained in that definition.

3- It was an EXAMPLE of how to measure SI to see if CSI is present.

Yes or no- do you understand that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The information in a definition was specified by the person who wrote the definition.
Posted by: FrankH on April 04 2010,08:03

Hey Joe,

I gave you an example of evidence for Evolution.

Now I would like to see your evidence for ID.  I would like to see you use CSI or EF to explain what we see in biological organisms.

Thanks in advance
Posted by: Mindrover on April 04 2010,08:18

Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,08:04)
1-The definition I provided is an example of specified information.

2-I then measured the information contained in that definition.

3- It was an EXAMPLE of how to measure SI to see if CSI is present.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Granting that SI can be measured, how much SI is required for CSI to be present?
Does CSI = Designed?

These are honest questions, I would hope for an answer devoid of invectives.
Posted by: FrankH on April 04 2010,08:26

Quote (Mindrover @ April 04 2010,08:18)
Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,08:04)
1-The definition I provided is an example of specified information.

2-I then measured the information contained in that definition.

3- It was an EXAMPLE of how to measure SI to see if CSI is present.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Granting that SI can be measured, how much SI is required for CSI to be present?
Does CSI = Designed?

These are honest questions, I would hope for an answer devoid of invectives.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

To add to Mindrover's post, as he's granting that CSI is measuring "information", I'd like to know what is actually being measured?

Joe, could you define or tell what type of information is being measured by CSI?

Can different methods show different degrees or types of information?
Posted by: sledgehammer on April 04 2010,12:10

Quote (Mindrover @ April 04 2010,06:18)
 
Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,08:04)
1-The definition I provided is an example of specified information.

2-I then measured the information contained in that definition.

3- It was an EXAMPLE of how to measure SI to see if CSI is present.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Granting that SI can be measured, how much SI is required for CSI to be present?
Does CSI = Designed?

These are honest questions, I would hope for an answer devoid of invectives.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A legit question deserves a legit answer.  Joe can correct me if I get it wrong, but according to Dembski's "Design Inference" :

PREMISE
Information can be measured. (in bits preferebly).

PREMISE
"Specified" information (SI) can be measured unambiguously. (not proven IMO)

IF
 the information is "specified"

AND IF
 the SI exceeds the UPB (Universal Probability Bound)
of ~10^150 (approx 500 bits)

THEN
the information is sufficiently complex and Design (capital D) is inferred.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on April 04 2010,12:57

If we are seriously going to talk about it, here is Dembski's 2005 paper titled, < Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence >
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We thus define the specified complexity of T given H (minus the tilde and context sensitivity) as
X = –log2[ 10^120 · S(T)·P(T|H)].
...
It follows that if 10^120 · S(T)·P(T|H) < 1/2 or, equivalently, that if X = –log2[ 10^120 · S(T)·P(T|H)] > 1, then it is less likely than not on the scale of the whole universe, with all replicational and specificational resources factored in, that E should have occurred according to the chance hypothesis H. Consequently, we should think that E occurred by some process other than one characterized by H.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is interesting how many ID proponents have not taken the time to understand Dembski's calculation for "specified complexity".

Specified Complexity is nothing more than a fancy way of saying if "...it is less likely than not... [something came about] ...according to the chance hypothesis H...[then it] ...occurred by some process other than one characterized by H."

Dembski then argues design is the only possible alternative.

This is old news and has been argued by people much smarter than I.

My argument with all of this is where anyone, including Dembski, is justified in assuming anything happens by "chance"?  Quantum Mechanics is non-deterministic.  We don't know it is random.
Posted by: keiths on April 04 2010,13:08

Mindrover,

Where did you get that photo of Joe G. for your avatar?
Posted by: sledgehammer on April 04 2010,13:42

Oops. 10^120, 10^150,  what's 30 orders of magnitude between friends.  Chump change.  I wasn't even off by a whole < dembski >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Error in dembskis

That error might be measured in a unit called "dembskis" that scaled things in terms of orders of magnitude came up in discussion of errors in an essay by Marks and Dembski. The reference unit of error for the measure is taken from the case mentioned above in the M/N ratio calculation note, where Dembski had an error of about 65 orders of magnitude. "Dave W." formalized the notion with an equation, and W. Kevin Vicklund suggested using a rounded-off value of 150 as the constant in the denominator, based upon Dembski's figure of 10^150 as a universal small probability. Thus, the final form of quantifying error in dembskis (Reed Cartwright proposed the symbol ?) is

? = | ln(erroneous measure) - ln(correct measure) | / 150

There is not yet a consensus on what to term the unit, but two proposals being considered are "Dmb" and "duns".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ETA: Hat tip to Wes for link above
Posted by: FrankH on April 04 2010,17:17

Well, I hope Joe G. takes this as a serious attempt to see where both sides stand.  So Joe, I and others have done two things:

1:  Presented Evidence that supports Evolution

2:  Shown that many here understand CSI and EF but feel that it is not adequate to do what Dr. Dembski has stated it does.

So are you going to show us an example of evidence FOR ID and how EF and CSI work on biological systems?
Posted by: Mindrover on April 04 2010,18:54

Quote (keiths @ April 04 2010,13:08)
Mindrover,

Where did you get that photo of Joe G. for your avatar?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is my son.  Similarities are purely coincidental.
Posted by: OgreMkV on April 05 2010,07:48

Hey Joe,

Since you can't answer our question about how to measure/calculate whatever it is you think your 'hypothesis' is about, here's a much easier question for you and I'm really curious about the answer.

Do you realize that even if you prove evolution to be false, that does not automatically mean that your 'hypothesis' is correct?  (yes/no)
Posted by: Joe G on April 06 2010,13:08

Quote (OgreMkV @ April 05 2010,07:48)
Hey Joe,

Since you can't answer our question about how to measure/calculate whatever it is you think your 'hypothesis' is about, here's a much easier question for you and I'm really curious about the answer.

Do you realize that even if you prove evolution to be false, that does not automatically mean that your 'hypothesis' is correct?  (yes/no)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ID stands on the positive evidence.

The evidence I have provided and you have choked on.
Posted by: Joe G on April 06 2010,13:10

Quote (FrankH @ April 04 2010,17:17)
Well, I hope Joe G. takes this as a serious attempt to see where both sides stand.  So Joe, I and others have done two things:

1:  Presented Evidence that supports Evolution

2:  Shown that many here understand CSI and EF but feel that it is not adequate to do what Dr. Dembski has stated it does.

So are you going to show us an example of evidence FOR ID and how EF and CSI work on biological systems?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Frank,

ID is not anti-evolution. IOW evidence for evolution is meaningless.

Neither you nor anyone else has provided any positive evidence for blind, undirected processes.

As for the EF how do you think scientists determine the cause now?
Posted by: Joe G on April 06 2010,13:15

Quote (FrankH @ April 03 2010,15:33)
Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,14:33)
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 03 2010,08:52)
So, how bout that challenge Joe?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I am ready-

Any time you want to start posting positive evidence for your position I will read it and respond.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Have you ever posted "positive evidence for ID" Joe?

I would like to see it.

As for "positive evidence for evolution", I give you this:

< http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/full/nature04637.html >

Yes Joe, this is Rocket Science and yes, it takes study to grasp it.  There are no quick or easy solutions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, Frank I have supported ID:

< supporting ID >

Also your support for evolution is a joke.

There isn't anything about blind, undirected processes.

Ya see ID is NOT anti-evolution.

Just anti- the blind watchmaker having sole dominion over evolutionary processes.
Posted by: fnxtr on April 06 2010,13:16

Quote (Joe G @ April 06 2010,11:10)
Quote (FrankH @ April 04 2010,17:17)
Well, I hope Joe G. takes this as a serious attempt to see where both sides stand.  So Joe, I and others have done two things:

1:  Presented Evidence that supports Evolution

2:  Shown that many here understand CSI and EF but feel that it is not adequate to do what Dr. Dembski has stated it does.

So are you going to show us an example of evidence FOR ID and how EF and CSI work on biological systems?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Frank,

ID is not anti-evolution. IOW evidence for evolution is meaningless.

Neither you nor anyone else has provided any positive evidence for blind, undirected processes.

As for the EF how do you think scientists determine the cause now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


IOW, "No."
Posted by: blipey on April 06 2010,14:43

Joe.  Larger "size":

1.  one cubic foot of granite

or

2.  10 cubic feet of Nerf?
Posted by: blipey on April 06 2010,14:44

Joe.

An example of how to tell two objects apart using CSI.
Posted by: blipey on April 06 2010,14:45

Joe.

Please use the EF to show the designed nature of any object you choose.

Then, using the same process, show the undesigned nature of a different object of your choice.
Posted by: blipey on April 06 2010,14:46

These are the foundation stones of ID (I guess), so please show how they are useful by giving detailed examples.

Thanks.
Posted by: OgreMkV on April 06 2010,15:43

Quote (blipey @ April 06 2010,14:46)
These are the foundation stones of ID (I guess), so please show how they are useful by giving detailed examples.

Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think 'stones' may be too strong a word.

The foundation of ID is soiled toilet paper that's been floating for two weeks.
Posted by: blipey on April 06 2010,15:49

Quote (OgreMkV @ April 06 2010,15:43)
Quote (blipey @ April 06 2010,14:46)
These are the foundation stones of ID (I guess), so please show how they are useful by giving detailed examples.

Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think 'stones' may be too strong a word.

The foundation of ID is soiled toilet paper that's been floating for two weeks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was thinking that they had to have really "sizey" stones to advance ID....
Posted by: Mindrover on April 06 2010,15:53

Quote (Mindrover @ April 04 2010,08:18)
 
Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,08:04)
1-The definition I provided is an example of specified information.

2-I then measured the information contained in that definition.

3- It was an EXAMPLE of how to measure SI to see if CSI is present.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Granting that SI can be measured, how much SI is required for CSI to be present?
Does CSI = Designed?

These are honest questions, I would hope for an answer devoid of invectives.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just re-posting this so it is not lost amongst the other posts.
Posted by: Dr.GH on April 06 2010,17:12

Quote (blipey @ April 06 2010,13:49)
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 06 2010,15:43)
Quote (blipey @ April 06 2010,14:46)
These are the foundation stones of ID (I guess), so please show how they are useful by giving detailed examples.

Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think 'stones' may be too strong a word.

The foundation of ID is soiled toilet paper that's been floating for two weeks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was thinking that they had to have really "sizey" stones to advance ID....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


More like rocks in their heads.
Posted by: Badger3k on April 06 2010,20:42

Quote (Dr.GH @ April 06 2010,17:12)
Quote (blipey @ April 06 2010,13:49)
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 06 2010,15:43)
 
Quote (blipey @ April 06 2010,14:46)
These are the foundation stones of ID (I guess), so please show how they are useful by giving detailed examples.

Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think 'stones' may be too strong a word.

The foundation of ID is soiled toilet paper that's been floating for two weeks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was thinking that they had to have really "sizey" stones to advance ID....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


More like rocks in their heads.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Kidney stones come to mind, or else big brass ones for claiming to know better than what actual facts and evidence shows.
Posted by: Hermagoras on April 06 2010,21:25

Quote (Mindrover @ April 06 2010,15:53)
These are honest questions, I would hope for an answer devoid of invectives.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've seen the flame of hope
in the face of the hopeless
that was the biggest
heartbreak of all


-- Bruce Cockburn
Posted by: FrankH on April 07 2010,09:32

Quote (Joe G @ April 06 2010,13:15)
Quote (FrankH @ April 03 2010,15:33)
Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,14:33)
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 03 2010,08:52)
So, how bout that challenge Joe?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I am ready-

Any time you want to start posting positive evidence for your position I will read it and respond.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Have you ever posted "positive evidence for ID" Joe?

I would like to see it.

As for "positive evidence for evolution", I give you this:

< http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/full/nature04637.html >

Yes Joe, this is Rocket Science and yes, it takes study to grasp it.  There are no quick or easy solutions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yes, Frank I have supported ID:

< supporting ID >

Also your support for evolution is a joke.

There isn't anything about blind, undirected processes.

Ya see ID is NOT anti-evolution.

Just anti- the blind watchmaker having sole dominion over evolutionary processes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Hmmm,

Well Joe, I see no reason why you can't reproduce some of that work here.  The only thing is on your blog, you control the comment.  Here you can't.

Also, I didn't see anything for ID, not even the so called "peer-review" articles.  There is nothing about ID in any of the links.

Also, ID makes not 1 but 2 and more likely 3 unverified claims for ID:

1:  That there is a directed design.

2:  The the directed design is caused by some intelligence.

3:  That this intelligence is singular (and most who follow ID believe, no evidence at all, that this designer is their god or goddess).

Now, instead of just saying that what I brought to the table is a joke, please be so kind as to point out the flaw in the studies.  Excuse me for not just taking your word that it's a "joke" when you haven't shown where the errors are.

Evolution is not "blind chance".  There are feedback effects that "direct" evolution.  To say this "direction" has a goal is a sign of "intelligence" would be akin to saying that water going downhill is "directed by the intelligence of the hill" would not be correct.  In the same way ID fails at doing anything.

To go further, ID holds that some things are designed and others are not.  Yet there is no evidence for this.  Has anyone ever shown that EF and CSI have been demonstrated to determine design?  No?  But wait, you say they have?  Well, I've never seen it.  Perhaps you could give us an example.

Again, if you say it can without providing any evidence or show us how it is done, I will mark that EF and CSI don't work, despite any claims that it does by you.  Obviously if you can't do it and you support that postulate then like all other "thought experiments" such as "lower life forms (flies, worms, ants, etc) come about through rotting flesh" it would be wrong.

As for ID being anti-anything, it is anti-science.
Posted by: Henry J on April 07 2010,13:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Even then EF and CSI have never been demonstrated to be able to show this.  No?  They have?  Well, I've never seen it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe those things have to make it through the filter before they can be specified as explanations of complex things?
Posted by: Robin on April 07 2010,14:24

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 03 2010,15:12)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,15:36)
As I said a person's size includes their height and weight.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ok. It would follow that the size of a statue also includes its height and weight.

So, how much taller would plaster David have to be than original David to be the same size as original David?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Seems to me that Joe is saying that a plaster cast David could never be the same size as a marble David.
Posted by: Louis on April 07 2010,15:45

Quote (Robin @ April 07 2010,19:24)
[quote=Reciprocating Bill,April 03 2010,15:12][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,15:36)
As I said a person's size includes their height and weight.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ok. It would follow that the size of a statue also includes its height and weight.

So, how much taller would plaster David have to be than original David to be the same size as original David?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Seems to me that Joe is saying that a plaster cast David could never be the same size as a marble David.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd go further. Unless comparing two objects of identical dimensions, temperatures, compositions, densities and positions in spacetime (relativistic distortions count, ya'll) no two objects in the entire universe are the same size.

Take that evolutionists.

I propose an experiment that Joe will enjoy. Joe bends over and jams objects up his arse and tells us if they are the same size. I propose the first two objects are a 1 kilogram block of osmium and a 1 kilogram black of splintery balsa wood. I'm guessing Joe will rapidly detect the differences in size.

Louis
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on April 07 2010,16:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I propose an experiment that Joe will enjoy. Joe bends over and jams objects up his arse and tells us if they are the same size. I propose the first two objects are a 1 kilogram block of osmium and a 1 kilogram black of splintery balsa wood. I'm guessing Joe will rapidly detect the differences in size.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think I'd actually pay to see that!
Posted by: JohnW on April 07 2010,17:20

Quote (Louis @ April 07 2010,13:45)
I propose an experiment that Joe will enjoy. Joe bends over and jams objects up his arse and tells us if they are the same size. I propose the first two objects are a 1 kilogram block of osmium and a 1 kilogram black of splintery balsa wood. I'm guessing Joe will rapidly detect the differences in size.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I see new opportunities for ID research here.  Abandon the Explanatory Filter and try the Excretionary Sphincter.
Posted by: FrankH on April 07 2010,17:23

Quote (JohnW @ April 07 2010,17:20)
Quote (Louis @ April 07 2010,13:45)
I propose an experiment that Joe will enjoy. Joe bends over and jams objects up his arse and tells us if they are the same size. I propose the first two objects are a 1 kilogram block of osmium and a 1 kilogram black of splintery balsa wood. I'm guessing Joe will rapidly detect the differences in size.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I see new opportunities for ID research here.  Abandon the Explanatory Filter and try the Excretionary Sphincter.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, Banana Boy already told us how well the banana fits.

Perhaps he'll do the research or publish the results of the tests he's already done.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on April 07 2010,18:37

Quote (Robin @ April 07 2010,15:24)
               
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 03 2010,15:12)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                 
Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,15:36)
As I said a person's size includes their height and weight.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ok. It would follow that the size of a statue also includes its height and weight.

So, how much taller would plaster David have to be than original David to be the same size as original David?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Seems to me that Joe is saying that a plaster cast David could never be the same size as a marble David.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is indeed what he is saying. There are interesting consequences. For example, objects that are made of materials of differing density cannot be said to be either larger or smaller than one another.

Imagine a continuous series of 10,000 plaster Davids ranging from 1 inch to 1826 feet in height. Each is one tenth of one percent larger than the previous.

It follows from Joe's definition of size that no plaster David in that series is the same size of the original David, plus or minus 1/10th of 1%.

It also follows that no statue in that series is of smaller size, and no statue is of larger size, than marble David.

If Joe argues that the 1" tall plaster David is of smaller size and that the 1826 foot tall plaster David is of larger size than original marble David, then he clearly must accept that as we move up the series we pass at some point from statues that are smaller to those that are larger.

Joe, when does this occur? Which David can no longer be said to be smaller than the original, and which can be said to be larger? They can't be adjacent Davids if, as above, no David is the same size of the original David (plus or minus 1/10th of 1%). Given that they are not adjacent, what difference in height separates the last that may be said to be smaller than the first that may be said to be larger? Are those between neither smaller than, larger than, nor the same size as the original marble David?

Your only alternative is to deny that a 1" plaster David is of smaller size and, and also deny that a 1826 foot plaster David is of larger size than the original David.

IOW, Joe's definition of size is gibberish.

[edit to fix numberly stuff]
Posted by: Wolfhound on April 07 2010,19:47

Quote (FrankH @ April 07 2010,18:23)
Perhaps he'll do the research or publish the results of the tests he's already done.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Peer reviewed, no doubt.  *wink-wink*
Posted by: Badger3k on April 07 2010,19:57

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ April 07 2010,16:03)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I propose an experiment that Joe will enjoy. Joe bends over and jams objects up his arse and tells us if they are the same size. I propose the first two objects are a 1 kilogram block of osmium and a 1 kilogram black of splintery balsa wood. I'm guessing Joe will rapidly detect the differences in size.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think I'd actually pay to see that!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only from the front (or rather, just a facial...I mean, shot in the face...I mean, of the face...)

Actually, considering the amount of words Joe spends on bottoms, perhaps the test has been conducted.  I hesitate to try google....
Posted by: FrankH on April 08 2010,10:50

Hey Joe,


Is information required to make the path for a river?

Would you describe DNA to be a linear language, such as English, German or a computer program or is it a 3D recursive language that is not just linear but does different things based on the structure and what comes later in the sequence can affect what was being formed back in the chain?

Looking forward to your answers.
Posted by: fnxtr on April 08 2010,10:54

Hey Joe, where you goin' with that tard in your brain?

(apologies to Jimi).
Posted by: Robin on April 08 2010,11:29

[quote=Louis,April 07 2010,15:45][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (Robin @ April 07 2010,19:24Seems to me that Joe is saying that a plaster cast David could [i)
never[/i] be the same size as a marble David.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'd go further. Unless comparing two objects of identical dimensions, temperatures, compositions, densities and positions in spacetime (relativistic distortions count, ya'll) no two objects in the entire universe are the same size.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yep...that seems to follow. Odd, but that's what he seems to be implying.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Take that evolutionists.

I propose an experiment that Joe will enjoy. Joe bends over and jams objects up his arse and tells us if they are the same size. I propose the first two objects are a 1 kilogram block of osmium and a 1 kilogram black of splintery balsa wood. I'm guessing Joe will rapidly detect the differences in size.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Oh he'll just call you a bunch of names, Louis, and then point out that since balsa has a different texture than the osmium, they can't possibly be the same size. Take that!  ;)
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 08 2010,11:47

Quote (fnxtr @ April 08 2010,10:54)
Hey Joe, where you goin' with that tard in your brain?

(apologies to Jimi).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's going way down South, way down where a man can be free (from the tyranny of methodological naturalism)
Posted by: Mindrover on April 16 2010,13:44

Since he wasn't answering over here, I went to his blog and asked my questions (my follow-ups are italicized).
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But wouldn't this lend credence to the critics?

Why would it?

If the "critics" applied their "criticism" equally they would be attacking the ToE too.

If something is defined with 100, characters+it would meet the 500 bit threshold for CSI.

This is true- as long as all the characters are necessary.

If it can be defined with fewer than 100 characters, but is designed, why would it not have CSI?

500 bits of SI = CSI- period- according to "No Fee Lunch".

If it has CSI, but contains less than 500 bits of information, how is this number a useful threshold?

It cannot have CSI and be less than 500 bits of SI.

It can be designed and have less than 500 bits of SI.

As for a "useful threshold"- I don't even know if that is what Dembski was after, but CSI is greater than all the probabilistic resources in the universe.

I think that is all Dembski was after.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So.
SI >= 500 = CSI = Designed
SI < 500 != CSI = Possibly Designed

Even ignoring how SI is generated, this is nonsense. This type of "logic" is perfectly in step with his "hail is not made of water" diatribe.
Posted by: blipey on April 16 2010,16:52

Yes.  JoeG receives many votes each year in the Stupidest Person in the World contest.
Posted by: keiths on April 16 2010,20:49

Joe G. sighting at exactly 1:00 in < this video >.
Posted by: digitus impudicus on April 16 2010,23:47

Joe, I'm bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbaaaaaaaaaaaaaacccccccccccccckkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk!

Have any new misconceptions about the Buick GN/GNX from the 80's????
Posted by: didymos on April 17 2010,02:26

Quote (blipey @ April 16 2010,14:52)
Yes.  JoeG receives many votes each year in the Stupidest Person in the World contest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is there a Stupidest Person Ever contest?  'Cause I think he could take it, easy.
Posted by: fnxtr on April 17 2010,12:14

Isn't it just about time for another "I know you are but what am I, asshole?" drive-by?
Posted by: rhmc on April 17 2010,13:31

Quote (digitus impudicus @ April 17 2010,00:47)
Joe, I'm bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbaaaaaaaaaaaaaacccccccccccccckkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk!

Have any new misconceptions about the Buick GN/GNX from the 80's????
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


he claimed it was a Dodge.
Posted by: Dr.GH on April 17 2010,13:33

Quote (fnxtr @ April 17 2010,10:14)
Isn't it just about time for another "I know you are but what am I, asshole?" drive-by?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think they only happen every 5 days +/- 1 day. Still collecting data.
Posted by: OgreMkV on April 17 2010,16:26

I think that the only reason Joe hasn't won a Darwin award is that he's still alive.
Posted by: didymos on April 17 2010,23:46

Quote (OgreMkV @ April 17 2010,14:26)
I think that the only reason Joe hasn't won a Darwin award is that he's still alive.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, he's taken to drinking hydrogen peroxide, so fingers crossed.
Posted by: digitus impudicus on April 23 2010,23:48

Joe,

Is the CSI of a Grand National higher or lower than that of a GNX?

Just for curiosity's sake............
Posted by: OgreMkV on April 24 2010,07:16

Blech, Joe's a wimp.  Can't even stand he heat, so he runs off.

At least AFDave had some stamina.
Posted by: Dr.GH on April 24 2010,11:43

Quote (OgreMkV @ April 24 2010,05:16)
Blech, Joe's a wimp.  Can't even stand he heat, so he runs off.

At least AFDave had some stamina.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yea! - no digital tard jizz since April 6.
Posted by: didymos on April 25 2010,05:25

Maybe the peroxide got him.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 25 2010,07:40

Quote (didymos @ April 25 2010,05:25)
Maybe the peroxide got him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If so, I might start to believe in a just God.
Posted by: Dr.GH on April 25 2010,09:40

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 25 2010,05:40)
Quote (didymos @ April 25 2010,05:25)
Maybe the peroxide got him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If so, I might start to believe in a just God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't want a god into justice. I want one that is merciful, and with a good sense of humor.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 25 2010,09:56

Quote (Dr.GH @ April 25 2010,09:40)
I don't want a god into justice. I want one that is merciful, and with a good sense of humor.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You can't always get what you want.
But if you try sometimes well you just might find
You get what you need.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on April 25 2010,10:41

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 25 2010,10:56)
Quote (Dr.GH @ April 25 2010,09:40)
I don't want a god into justice. I want one that is merciful, and with a good sense of humor.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You can't always get what you want.
But if you try sometimes well you just might find
You get what you need.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please allow me to introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste...
Posted by: sledgehammer on April 25 2010,11:33

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 25 2010,07:56)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ April 25 2010,09:40)
I don't want a god into justice. I want one that is merciful, and with a good sense of humor.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You can't always get what you want.
But if you try sometimes well you just might find
You get what you need.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't get no satisfaction
Posted by: fnxtr on April 26 2010,01:00

Quote (sledgehammer @ April 25 2010,09:33)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 25 2010,07:56)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ April 25 2010,09:40)
I don't want a god into justice. I want one that is merciful, and with a good sense of humor.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You can't always get what you want.
But if you try sometimes well you just might find
You get what you need.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't get no satisfaction
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And the queen is bravely shouting "What the hell is going on?"
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on April 27 2010,08:13

Posted by Joe G this morning on < UnintelligentReasoning >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Comment Moderation Enabled

However this is going to become a lonely blog because only on-topic comments- comments that demonstrate an understanding of what I post or comments that support the anti-ID position will be allowed
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL!  Poor little Joey Gallien is tired of being picked on by the mean evos, so he's taking his ball and going home.  :D  :D  :D
Posted by: OgreMkV on April 27 2010,08:19

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 27 2010,08:13)
Posted by Joe G this morning on < UnintelligentReasoning >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Comment Moderation Enabled

However this is going to become a lonely blog because only on-topic comments- comments that demonstrate an understanding of what I post or comments that support the anti-ID position will be allowed
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL!  Poor little Joey Gallien is tired of being picked on by the mean evos, so he's taking his ball and going home.  :D  :D  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you have to believe that hail and water are made of two different compounds to post?  

I'll pass, but thanks for asking.
Posted by: dvunkannon on April 27 2010,09:21

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 27 2010,09:13)
Posted by Joe G this morning on < UnintelligentReasoning >

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Comment Moderation Enabled

However this is going to become a lonely blog because only on-topic comments- comments that demonstrate an understanding of what I post or comments that support the anti-ID position will be allowed
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL!  Poor little Joey Gallien is tired of being picked on by the mean evos, so he's taking his ball and going home.  :D  :D  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Comments that support the anti-ID position?
Posted by: sledgehammer on April 27 2010,09:51

Quote (dvunkannon @ April 27 2010,07:21)
 
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 27 2010,09:13)
Posted by Joe G this morning on < UnintelligentReasoning >

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Comment Moderation Enabled

However this is going to become a lonely blog because only on-topic comments- comments that demonstrate an understanding of what I post or comments that support the anti-ID position will be allowed
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL!  Poor little Joey Gallien is tired of being picked on by the mean evos, so he's taking his ball and going home.  :D  :D  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Comments that support the anti-ID position?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As in:

"All you have to do to refute ID is provide evidence for your position"

Which, when provided, is promptly ignored.

Ya see, IOW, Joe's blog will look like JAD's, except he doesn't even have his own VMartin.

How do ya like them green apples?

I love it so!
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on April 27 2010,16:38

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 27 2010,09:13)
Posted by Joe G this morning on < UnintelligentReasoning >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Comment Moderation Enabled

However this is going to become a lonely blog because only on-topic comments- comments that demonstrate an understanding of what I post or comments that support the anti-ID position will be allowed
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL!  Poor little Joey Gallien is tired of being picked on by the mean evos, so he's taking his ball and going home.  :D  :D  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What size is the ball?
Posted by: Hawks on April 27 2010,19:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What size is the ball?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bucky
Posted by: OgreMkV on April 27 2010,20:19

Reminds me of the guy who discovered bucky balls.  He found a stable 60 carbon structure (mass spec) and went to the math department to ask if they knew of a stable structure with 60 vertices and no more than 4 links and no less than 2 links to each vertex.

A few days later the math department chair called him back and said, "You're kidding right?  It's a damn soccer ball!  No quit bugging us."

I don't know if it actually happened that way, but it's pretty funny.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on April 27 2010,21:28

Quote (Hawks @ April 27 2010,20:38)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What size is the ball?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bucky
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


R. Buckminster Fuller was all into "timeless sizeless" principles.

He had balls, I'll give him that.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 30 2010,08:40

< https://www.blogger.com/comment....1116763 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe G said...
Thorton you are a little faggot.

I am not a tough guy.

I am one person standing up to a bunch of belligerent faggots- like you.

As for atbc no one there can support their position and they change the words to my posts.

All we have at atbc is more belligerent faggots.

I have enough here.

IOW the people in charge there are just as spineless as you are.

12:13 PM


Joe G said...
belligerent interenet faggot:

Somebody who frequents internet message boards and chat rooms and spews their ignorance all the while acting like they know soemthing.

They badger people with their ignorance and act as if their ignorance is meaningful discourse.

They will never try to support their position but will needle their opponents with irrelevant nonsense.

They will claim victory when said nonsense goes unanswered.

All belligerent interent faggots are liars, losers, poseurs and most likely still live with their momma- yes they are momma's boys.

The belligerent internet faggots who have posted here include Thorton, Richtard Hughes, Erik Pratt, Zachriel, Hawks- well the list goes on and on...

12:36 PM

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Posted by: OgreMkV on April 30 2010,09:19

And he's supposed to be a Christian?

Honestly, I can't see why anyone would be a IDist without being a Christian, so is he?

What a little wimp, too scared to say anything that he can't control.

Oh, and his 'insults' are almost as weak as his arguement supporting ID.
Posted by: Robin on April 30 2010,09:54

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 30 2010,08:40)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Somebody who frequents internet message boards and chat rooms and spews their ignorance all the while acting like they know soemthing.

They badger people with their ignorance and act as if their ignorance is meaningful discourse.


12:36 PM

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I call POE.
Posted by: Hermagoras on April 30 2010,11:48

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 30 2010,08:40)
< https://www.blogger.com/comment....1116763 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe G said...
Thorton you are a little faggot.

I am not a tough guy.

I am one person standing up to a bunch of belligerent faggots- like you.

As for atbc no one there can support their position and they change the words to my posts.

All we have at atbc is more belligerent faggots.

I have enough here.

IOW the people in charge there are just as spineless as you are.

12:13 PM


Joe G said...
belligerent interenet faggot:

Somebody who frequents internet message boards and chat rooms and spews their ignorance all the while acting like they know soemthing.

They badger people with their ignorance and act as if their ignorance is meaningful discourse.

They will never try to support their position but will needle their opponents with irrelevant nonsense.

They will claim victory when said nonsense goes unanswered.

All belligerent interent faggots are liars, losers, poseurs and most likely still live with their momma- yes they are momma's boys.

The belligerent internet faggots who have posted here include Thorton, Richtard Hughes, Erik Pratt, Zachriel, Hawks- well the list goes on and on...

12:36 PM

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe seems to fit his BIF definition pretty well.  (I don't know if he lives with his Mom, but the other stuff matches perfectly.)
Posted by: Raevmo on May 05 2010,07:52

A poster going by the name JoeGB spotted on < The Guardian's Cif >
Posted by: didymos on May 05 2010,09:15

Quote (Raevmo @ May 05 2010,05:52)
A poster going by the name JoeGB spotted on < The Guardian's Cif >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm, the vocabulary seems a bit too literate for Mr. Gallien.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 05 2010,10:55

Tard Safari:

< http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010....st.html >

He's venturing out.
Posted by: digitus impudicus on May 08 2010,22:36

Joe:

You never did specify whether or not a GN had a higher CSI than a GNX.  

I will understand if you admit ignorance of the difference between a GN and a GNX, but surely such a great wizard of GM should have worked through those calculations by now?

Please sweety?
Posted by: Quack on May 09 2010,02:16

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 25 2010,09:56)
   
Quote (Dr.GH @ April 25 2010,09:40)
I don't want a god into justice. I want one that is merciful, and with a good sense of humor.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You can't always get what you want.
But if you try sometimes well you just might find
You get what you need.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jeffrey K. McKee in "The Riddled Chain":  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mick Jagger and Keith Richards ... did not have evolutionary biology in mind. But few phrases could better portray Darwinian evolution, conceived a hundred years earlier.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: olegt on May 09 2010,09:23

Joe's < latest gem >:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I will also note that not one scientist has any idea about the history of life on Earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: dvunkannon on May 14 2010,11:32

CBEB's want to know... what is the Genius from Keene's opinion of the Theobald UCA paper. Doesn't Joe have some strongly held positions on the subject?
Posted by: carlsonjok on May 14 2010,17:41

Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 16 2010,16:53)
Anyone looking for a sig?

< Joe G >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hail is made out of water?

Are you really that stupid?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: KCdgw on May 17 2010,08:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the Genius from Keene's opinion
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Funny you should mention Keene. When Joe mentioned he had been holding "Intelligent Design Awareness Day" seminars at the local schools, I sent inquiries to the school principal, school board, and local newspaper asking just what Mr Gallien's qualifications were to present such seminars. Not one ever replied.

I think Joe lives in Salem's Lot
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 17 2010,15:51

Quote (olegt @ May 09 2010,09:23)
Joe's < latest gem >:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I will also note that not one scientist has any idea about the history of life on Earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes. Then "ID Guy / not Joe at" all goes on:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
..I have an idea that catastrophes ruled the creation of the strata, making the requirement of millions of years superfluous.

IOW what may appear to be millions of years under one preconceived bias, may actually be thousands/ tens of thousands.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But wait! what a coincidence...

< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....th.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Radioactive Decay and the Age of The Earth
-
It is said that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

This is based on radioactive decay- well what some scientists have assumed is based on rad decay.

...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Great minds think alike, eh?
Posted by: SLP on May 17 2010,17:45

Quote (OgreMkV @ April 30 2010,09:19)
And he's supposed to be a Christian?

Honestly, I can't see why anyone would be a IDist without being a Christian, so is he?

What a little wimp, too scared to say anything that he can't control.

Oh, and his 'insults' are almost as weak as his arguement supporting ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He used to claim he was a Muslim.

But when a poster on the old OCW board tried to discuss the Koran with him, he bailed.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 20 2010,23:49

Just found this:

< http://unintelligent-reasoning.blogspot.com/ >
Posted by: silverspoon on May 21 2010,10:09

Please make it stop! Joe actually believes the age of rocks can’t be determined because the unstable atoms the rock possesses first started decaying when they were forged in stars that went supernova.  What a doofus.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on May 21 2010,11:47

Joe G thinks there is a ticking clock inside each atom that we can examine to determine when it will decay


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is a radioactive clock?

That is what scientists are looking at- the clock starts ticking when the unstable element is formed in/ by the star.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link. >

For some reason he won't provide a citation or any further information on this clock.

He also refines his internet tough guy act



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As for a dare I dare you to come to New Hampshire and meet me- but that ain't going to happen, is it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He's asking me out on a date? How sweet.
Posted by: midwifetoad on May 21 2010,12:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He's asking me out on a date? How sweet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ask him if he's a top or a bottom.

Quark, that is.
Posted by: ppb on May 21 2010,12:33

Quote (midwifetoad @ May 21 2010,13:07)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He's asking me out on a date? How sweet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ask him if he's a top or a bottom.

Quark, that is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's definitely no charm.
Posted by: OgreMkV on May 21 2010,14:20

Quote (ppb @ May 21 2010,12:33)
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 21 2010,13:07)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He's asking me out on a date? How sweet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ask him if he's a top or a bottom.

Quark, that is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's definitely no charm.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But he is strange.
Posted by: sledgehammer on May 21 2010,16:16

Quote (OgreMkV @ May 21 2010,12:20)
Quote (ppb @ May 21 2010,12:33)
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 21 2010,13:07)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He's asking me out on a date? How sweet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ask him if he's a top or a bottom.

Quark, that is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's definitely no charm.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But he is strange.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What  beauty!  I get a charge out of it, no matter which way you spin it.
Posted by: Quack on May 21 2010,16:26

Quote (sledgehammer @ May 21 2010,16:16)
Quote (OgreMkV @ May 21 2010,12:20)
Quote (ppb @ May 21 2010,12:33)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 21 2010,13:07)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He's asking me out on a date? How sweet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ask him if he's a top or a bottom.

Quark, that is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's definitely no charm.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But he is strange.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What  beauty!  I get a charge out of it, no matter which way you spin it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why don't we ever see ID humour like that?

Wait a second, guess I overlooked something
Posted by: Louis on May 21 2010,17:48

Quote (sledgehammer @ May 21 2010,22:16)
Quote (OgreMkV @ May 21 2010,12:20)
Quote (ppb @ May 21 2010,12:33)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 21 2010,13:07)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He's asking me out on a date? How sweet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ask him if he's a top or a bottom.

Quark, that is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's definitely no charm.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But he is strange.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What  beauty!  I get a charge out of it, no matter which way you spin it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The truth is he'll never show. The ID Guy/Joe pair won't split, between them they barely make 2/3 of a human. They're glued together. They'll never get their part on.

Louis
Posted by: J-Dog on May 21 2010,19:49

Louis -

I think the Penn Gilette STFU icon was more the real you...



And it added a certain something to the discussions, especially when posting a reply to your basic Creo and/or  FTK.
Posted by: didymos on May 21 2010,20:38

Quote (Louis @ May 21 2010,15:48)
Quote (sledgehammer @ May 21 2010,22:16)
Quote (OgreMkV @ May 21 2010,12:20)
 
Quote (ppb @ May 21 2010,12:33)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 21 2010,13:07)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He's asking me out on a date? How sweet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ask him if he's a top or a bottom.

Quark, that is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's definitely no charm.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But he is strange.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What  beauty!  I get a charge out of it, no matter which way you spin it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The truth is he'll never show. The ID Guy/Joe pair won't split, between them they barely make 2/3 of a human. They're glued together. They'll never get their part on.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That was aces!
Posted by: Louis on May 22 2010,08:49

Quote (J-Dog @ May 22 2010,01:49)
Louis -

I think the Penn Gilette STFU icon was more the real you...



And it added a certain something to the discussions, especially when posting a reply to your basic Creo and/or  FTK.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL. I still have it somewhere, but I have to say I prefer the current one. I feel less "STFU" and more "wild eyed and down the rabbit hole" nowadays.

A comedian once observed that reality was a terror. It always produced far funnier material than he ever could. I am beginning to realise on just what scale that observation is true. It's more than a little frightening.

Louis

Editedd for shpelung erars.
Posted by: Louis on May 22 2010,08:50

Quote (didymos @ May 22 2010,02:38)
Quote (Louis @ May 21 2010,15:48)
Quote (sledgehammer @ May 21 2010,22:16)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ May 21 2010,12:20)
 
Quote (ppb @ May 21 2010,12:33)
   
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 21 2010,13:07)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He's asking me out on a date? How sweet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ask him if he's a top or a bottom.

Quark, that is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's definitely no charm.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But he is strange.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What  beauty!  I get a charge out of it, no matter which way you spin it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The truth is he'll never show. The ID Guy/Joe pair won't split, between them they barely make 2/3 of a human. They're glued together. They'll never get their part on.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That was aces!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought it merely fine, man. These things have yet to gel, man.

Louis
Posted by: J-Dog on May 22 2010,08:52

Quote (Louis @ May 22 2010,08:49)
A comedian once observed that reality was a terror. It always produced far funnier material than he ever could. I am beginning to realise one just what scale that observation is true. It's more than a little frightening.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fatherhood will do that to for you...
Posted by: sledgehammer on May 22 2010,10:17

Quote (Louis @ May 22 2010,06:50)
Quote (didymos @ May 22 2010,02:38)
Quote (Louis @ May 21 2010,15:48)
 
Quote (sledgehammer @ May 21 2010,22:16)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ May 21 2010,12:20)
   
Quote (ppb @ May 21 2010,12:33)
   
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 21 2010,13:07)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He's asking me out on a date? How sweet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ask him if he's a top or a bottom.

Quark, that is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's definitely no charm.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But he is strange.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What  beauty!  I get a charge out of it, no matter which way you spin it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The truth is he'll never show. The ID Guy/Joe pair won't split, between them they barely make 2/3 of a human. They're glued together. They'll never get their part on.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That was aces!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought it merely fine, man. These things have yet to gel, man.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To that I hoist ein stein to the new tone, Ian. I'll try not to be a Bohr.
Posted by: dogdidit on May 24 2010,09:04

Quote (sledgehammer @ May 22 2010,10:17)
Quote (Louis @ May 22 2010,06:50)
 
Quote (didymos @ May 22 2010,02:38)
 
Quote (Louis @ May 21 2010,15:48)
   
Quote (sledgehammer @ May 21 2010,22:16)
   
Quote (OgreMkV @ May 21 2010,12:20)
     
Quote (ppb @ May 21 2010,12:33)
     
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 21 2010,13:07)
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He's asking me out on a date? How sweet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ask him if he's a top or a bottom.

Quark, that is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's definitely no charm.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But he is strange.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What  beauty!  I get a charge out of it, no matter which way you spin it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The truth is he'll never show. The ID Guy/Joe pair won't split, between them they barely make 2/3 of a human. They're glued together. They'll never get their part on.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That was aces!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought it merely fine, man. These things have yet to gel, man.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To that I hoist ein stein to the new tone, Ian. I'll try not to be a Bohr.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ein stein? Make that zweig!
Posted by: Henry J on May 24 2010,13:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll try not to be a Bohr.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


At least chemistry is an elementary subject - at least on a periodic basis.
Posted by: Louis on May 24 2010,16:06

Quote (Henry J @ May 24 2010,19:45)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll try not to be a Bohr.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


At least chemistry is an elementary subject - at least on a periodic basis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ignore him, he's just looking for a reaction.

Louis
Posted by: Henry J on May 24 2010,20:58

Oh, not just any reaction, just one that passes the litmus test at the base level.
Posted by: sledgehammer on May 24 2010,23:20

My solution is to not precipitate in this fraction.
Posted by: Louis on May 25 2010,02:57

These sorts of puns can make one acid tongued. I will try to quench any hard words lest someone dissolve into tears.

Louis
Posted by: Henry J on May 25 2010,11:16

That does sound like a workable solution.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 25 2010,11:50

Joe should focus on the easy stuff like "how old is the world" before he tries to do hard, design related stuff.
Posted by: rossum on May 25 2010,18:55

Quote (Louis @ May 24 2010,16:06)
Quote (Henry J @ May 24 2010,19:45)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll try not to be a Bohr.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


At least chemistry is an elementary subject - at least on a periodic basis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ignore him, he's just looking for a reaction.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fermi la bouche?

rossum
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on May 25 2010,19:56

All these puns make me want to Boltz, man, constant feeling I get ever since I got bit by Schrödinger's cat...
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 26 2010,11:14

Tardgasm ERUPTION:

< http://telicthoughts.com/francis....-258611 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID guy Says:
May 26th, 2010 at 12:08 pm richtard:
So a rightful punishment for 'unatoned bullying' is death?

Death by their own stupidity/ incompetence, why not?

Try to stay in context.

Has anyone here ever poked you with a real stick?

Yes.

So you are trying to distract fdrom the fact that you don't know what you are talking about.

How evolutionary of you…


Comment by ID guy — May 26, 2010 @ 12:08 pm

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on May 27 2010,15:23

Joe explains something to me:

< http://telicthoughts.com/single-....-258657 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Who said anything about RM & NS and that being all there is?

Mutations are the source of the variation, Richard.

And according to the theory of evolution all mutations are genetic mistakes / accidents.

They are copying errors or damage that is unrepaired.

And then over the generations the mutations lucky enough to survive begin to collect, ie accumulate.

I believe Richard Dawkins called/ calls it "cumulative selection".

These mutations have to collect because no one thinks that one mutation can cause all the changes needed.

Some collect until the organism can no longer reproduce and that collection is then gone from the selectable resources.

Other collections survive and keep accumulating. Like little hoarders.

Some are more effective and efficient hoarders than others.

But in the end whatever survives, survives.

Do you not understand the theory, Richard?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



THAT'S supposed to be evolution?  ???
Posted by: sledgehammer on May 27 2010,15:41

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 27 2010,13:23)
Joe explains something to me:

< http://telicthoughts.com/single-....-258657 >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< much snippage>
But in the end whatever survives, survives.

Do you not understand the theory, Richard?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



THAT'S supposed to be evolution?  ???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, Joe.  That's so profound.  Whatever lives lives, whatever dies, dies; whoever spews, spews.  I think I understand your theory now.  Thanks, Joe
Posted by: Henry J on May 27 2010,21:31

The puns were funnier than that stuff! ;) :p

Henry
Posted by: Zachriel on May 29 2010,09:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Zachriel: Furthermore, many critical bindings in animals evolved deep in the Precambrian when populations and reproductive rates were much higher, and many of those are simply modified duplications.

< ID guy >: Unsupportable hearsay.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gossip from the deep Precambrian!
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on May 29 2010,15:07

Quote (Zachriel @ May 29 2010,10:37)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Zachriel: Furthermore, many critical bindings in animals evolved deep in the Precambrian when populations and reproductive rates were much higher, and many of those are simply modified duplications.

< ID guy >: Unsupportable hearsay.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gossip from the deep Precambrian!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It'll never stand up in court.
Posted by: blipey on May 29 2010,15:13

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 29 2010,15:07)
Quote (Zachriel @ May 29 2010,10:37)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Zachriel: Furthermore, many critical bindings in animals evolved deep in the Precambrian when populations and reproductive rates were much higher, and many of those are simply modified duplications.

< ID guy >: Unsupportable hearsay.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gossip from the deep Precambrian!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It'll never stand up in court.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But it may swim, or I'm all wet behind the ears.
Posted by: Ptaylor on June 14 2010,17:37

Joe has a new tardgasm over at < Corny's blog >. First appearance is < here >.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2010,10:35

MOAR RAGE!

< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....go.html >

< https://www.blogger.com/comment....6680304 >
Posted by: OgreMkV on July 06 2010,11:10

Not sure where to put this, but I've a question about ID.

I'm reading Behe's Dover testimony and I'm noticing that they are spending a lot of time on the structure of the flagellum.  Whether it really is a type III secretory system or how the designer acted to build the thing blah blah blah.

I guess the question is: What did the designer actually design?  Did he design the structure or the DNA code for the structure?

I can build a pretty complicated object (especially with LEGOs), but without a plan, no one could recreate it.  Even if it was an organism, then if the organism reproduced, it couldn't make another flagellum without the plan.

So all of Behe's arguements about the structure are moot because (among other reasons) the structure doesn't matter.  It's the DNA that matters.  So did the designer design the DNA and let nature take it's course or was the structure itself designed.

I know this isn't making a lot of sense and I know that the ID people don't have a clue.  I'm just trying to see if there's another effective arguement against IC here.

thoughts?
Posted by: Mindrover on July 06 2010,11:33

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 06 2010,10:35)
MOAR RAGE!

< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....go.html >

< https://www.blogger.com/comment....6680304 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow. JoeG sure seems desperate for OlegT to notice him. Oleg may wish to respond or suffer JoeG's next attempt - fishnet stockings and makeup.
Posted by: Henry J on July 06 2010,12:22



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I know this isn't making a lot of sense and I know that the ID people don't have a clue.  I'm just trying to see if there's another effective arguement against IC here.

thoughts?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I recall somebody pointing out that IC (at least as it was first defined) is predicted by evolution, and so was not an argument against it in the first place.
Posted by: Zachriel on July 06 2010,12:34

Quote (Henry J @ July 06 2010,12:22)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I know this isn't making a lot of sense and I know that the ID people don't have a clue.  I'm just trying to see if there's another effective arguement against IC here.

thoughts?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I recall somebody pointing out that IC (at least as it was first defined) is predicted by evolution, and so was not an argument against it in the first place.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Muller 1918, 1939. He called it "interlocking complexity."
Posted by: fnxtr on July 06 2010,13:05

Quote (Mindrover @ July 06 2010,09:33)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 06 2010,10:35)
MOAR RAGE!

< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....go.html >

< https://www.blogger.com/comment....6680304 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow. JoeG sure seems desperate for OlegT to notice him. Oleg may wish to respond or suffer JoeG's next attempt - fishnet stockings and makeup.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


*brain explodes with the image*
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2010,13:11

Quote (fnxtr @ July 06 2010,13:05)
Quote (Mindrover @ July 06 2010,09:33)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 06 2010,10:35)
MOAR RAGE!

< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....go.html >

< https://www.blogger.com/comment....6680304 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow. JoeG sure seems desperate for OlegT to notice him. Oleg may wish to respond or suffer JoeG's next attempt - fishnet stockings and makeup.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


*brain explodes with the image*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ummmm... *that's* not your brain...
Posted by: Quack on July 06 2010,13:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I know this isn't making a lot of sense and I know that the ID people don't have a clue.  I'm just trying to see if there's another effective argument against IC here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am more interested in the process of implementing genetic engineering, ID style. Dembski wouldn't have a clue, but has Behe ever said anything about that?

Say we modified a pig and let it loose; how to ensure the modification reach even the next generation?

As far as I can tell, ID must be the emptiest bag in the universe. But lo and behold a miracle, it drips $$$.
Posted by: didymos on July 06 2010,15:25

Quote (Henry J @ July 06 2010,10:22)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I know this isn't making a lot of sense and I know that the ID people don't have a clue.  I'm just trying to see if there's another effective arguement against IC here.

thoughts?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I recall somebody pointing out that IC (at least as it was first defined) is predicted by evolution, and so was not an argument against it in the first place.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From Muller's < 1918 paper > (1918! That Behe, I tells ya: cutting edge, man.  Cut-ting edge):

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Most present-day animals are the result of a long process of evolution, in which at least thousands of mutations must have taken place. Each new mutant in turn must have derived its survival value from the effect which it produced upon the "reaction system” that had been brought into being by the many previously formed factors in cooperation; thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very numerous different elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters and factors which, when new, were originally merely an asset finally became necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former. It must result, in consequence, that a dropping out of, or even a slight change in any one of these parts is very likely to disturb fatally the whole machinery; for this reason we should expect very many, if not most, mutations to result in lethal factors, and of the rest, the majority should be “semi-lethal” or at least disadvantageous in the struggle for life, and likely to set wrong any delicately balanced system, such as the reproductive system.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He then mentions all this had actually first occurred to him back in 1912.  What's interesting is that you can tell that, despite the formal language, he found it rather frustrating that he couldn't really test the idea properly (or, really, at all) at that time, and that even in 1918 it was still a pain in the ass to perform the kind of experiments he wanted to. Oh, and, he was still at it in < 19-fucking-38 >! It's a review, but still: he was actually actively pursuing the idea.

Then you have Behetard, with resources Muller probably would have killed for, who often can't even be bothered to look shit up on the google, much less read actual scientific papers, much, much, much, much less be bothered to do an experiment.  Fuck that noise! Man's got books to sell, baby. And stupid hats to buy:


Posted by: didymos on July 06 2010,15:26

Quote (fnxtr @ July 06 2010,11:05)
Quote (Mindrover @ July 06 2010,09:33)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 06 2010,10:35)
MOAR RAGE!

< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....go.html >

< https://www.blogger.com/comment....6680304 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow. JoeG sure seems desperate for OlegT to notice him. Oleg may wish to respond or suffer JoeG's next attempt - fishnet stockings and makeup.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


*brain explodes with the image*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Henry J on July 06 2010,15:40

Aw right, who's gonna clean up all that exploded brain stuff?  :O
Posted by: OgreMkV on July 06 2010,20:44

Quote (didymos @ July 06 2010,15:25)
Quote (Henry J @ July 06 2010,10:22)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I know this isn't making a lot of sense and I know that the ID people don't have a clue.  I'm just trying to see if there's another effective arguement against IC here.

thoughts?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I recall somebody pointing out that IC (at least as it was first defined) is predicted by evolution, and so was not an argument against it in the first place.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From Muller's < 1918 paper > (1918! That Behe, I tells ya: cutting edge, man.  Cut-ting edge):

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Most present-day animals are the result of a long process of evolution, in which at least thousands of mutations must have taken place. Each new mutant in turn must have derived its survival value from the effect which it produced upon the "reaction system” that had been brought into being by the many previously formed factors in cooperation; thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very numerous different elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters and factors which, when new, were originally merely an asset finally became necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former. It must result, in consequence, that a dropping out of, or even a slight change in any one of these parts is very likely to disturb fatally the whole machinery; for this reason we should expect very many, if not most, mutations to result in lethal factors, and of the rest, the majority should be “semi-lethal” or at least disadvantageous in the struggle for life, and likely to set wrong any delicately balanced system, such as the reproductive system.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He then mentions all this had actually first occurred to him back in 1912.  What's interesting is that you can tell that, despite the formal language, he found it rather frustrating that he couldn't really test the idea properly (or, really, at all) at that time, and that even in 1918 it was still a pain in the ass to perform the kind of experiments he wanted to. Oh, and, he was still at it in < 19-fucking-38 >! It's a review, but still: he was actually actively pursuing the idea.

Then you have Behetard, with resources Muller probably would have killed for, who often can't even be bothered to look shit up on the google, much less read actual scientific papers, much, much, much, much less be bothered to do an experiment.  Fuck that noise! Man's got books to sell, baby. And stupid hats to buy:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that Behe?  Man, he needs to see a dentist...
Posted by: Robin on July 07 2010,14:08

[quote=didymos,July 06 2010,15:25][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then you have Behetard, with resources Muller probably would have killed for, who often can't even be bothered to look shit up on the google, much less read actual scientific papers, much, much, much, much less be bothered to do an experiment.  Fuck that noise! Man's got books to sell, baby. And stupid hats to buy:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Umm...I...well...err...like the hat.
Posted by: didymos on July 07 2010,20:13

Quote (Robin @ July 07 2010,12:08)
Umm...I...well...err...like the hat.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Honestly it's not that bad (well, it's kinda goofy on him, but as hats go, I'm OK with it). I just needed a closer.  I wish I'd thought of the dentistry thing Ogre brought up.
Posted by: Zachriel on July 09 2010,16:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
OM: Not when you call a multiset a set you don't.

< Joe G >: I didn't do that ...

I said a multiset is a form of set.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thar she blows!


Posted by: Zachriel on July 19 2010,12:23

Today is a momentus day. A mere 1252 days, 7 hours, 11 minutes, 55 seconds ago, we proposed a simple definition.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Zachriel >:Let Pattern X be the class of all ordered sets such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Today, Joe G acknowledged the existence of this concept.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Joe G >: Well {1,{2,3}}, exhibits Pattern X- are you OK with that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We are so happy we could cry.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on July 19 2010,14:42

Quote (Zachriel @ July 19 2010,12:23)
We are so happy we could cry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Congratulations! You have got the patience of an angel. I hope you are a teacher.
However, it did not last. He became afraid of his own courage in his next comments.
Posted by: blipey on July 20 2010,18:18

true to form, however, Joe has decided to ignore his statement of agreement rather than admit that zachriel was right.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 21 2010,09:14

Joe


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID says that (most) mutations are directed- ie not random with respect to anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< ID says that? > Where? And how does "ID" know that?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 21 2010,17:11

< Joe >'s been frothing at the mouth for some time now at Corny's place.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So the EF can only be demonstrated in person?

Nope but if YOU want ME to demonstrate it then it has to be in person.

Not everything I do can be translated into words.

And in the end the way to refute the design inference - ie support YOUR position- is via the EF- as I said you get first crack at everything put into it...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You have proven to be a complete dolt when it comes to nested hierarchies and set theory.

You make mistake after mistake and refuse to correct them.

Thank you for being an evotard spokesperson.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Fill yer boots.
Posted by: Robin on July 22 2010,09:49

There are some here who have been saying that Ceiling Cat is their hero. Personally I'm going with < OM >:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It must bother you to not be able to make a positive case for your own position...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think you need a new bulb in that projector.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"...new bulb in that..." OM, you crack me up!
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 22 2010,11:28

Quote (Robin @ July 22 2010,09:49)
"...new bulb in that..." OM, you crack me up!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why thank you :) I try!
Posted by: fnxtr on July 22 2010,11:32

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 22 2010,09:28)
Quote (Robin @ July 22 2010,09:49)
"...new bulb in that..." OM, you crack me up!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why thank you :) I try!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seeing as how the current bulb is rather dim.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 30 2010,10:09

< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....ry.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...

Wrong Nicky.

The argument is that blind, undirected processes cannot produce information from scratch nor can those processes increase information.

IOW Nick you are a lying piece of shit.

Now please take me to Court and try to sue me for slander or libel.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's boys an idiot.
Posted by: Mindrover on July 30 2010,14:49

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 30 2010,10:09)
< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....ry.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...

Wrong Nicky.

The argument is that blind, undirected processes cannot produce information from scratch nor can those processes increase information.

IOW Nick you are a lying piece of shit.

Now please take me to Court and try to sue me for slander or libel.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's boys an idiot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On the plus side, it looks like Joe has stopped stalking Oleg.

On the negative, I have read yet another of his "LOOK AT ME!!!!" posts.

Why do I get the mental image of Joe in a soiled tutu and combat boots, jumping up and down in a city square, yelling his blog posts into a bullhorn at passers by?
Posted by: fnxtr on July 30 2010,16:30

Bloody hell. He's over on PT now crapping all over the "random responses to Luskin" thread.  Full of sound and fury...
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 30 2010,16:34

Quote (fnxtr @ July 30 2010,16:30)
Bloody hell. He's over on PT now crapping all over the "random responses to Luskin" thread.  Full of sound and fury...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/07/random-response.html >
Posted by: socle on July 30 2010,22:58

< Advanced set theory: >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Sheik:  

Do you claim that the sets {x,y} and { {}, {x}, {y}, {x, y} } are equal?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Joe G:

Let x = $10 and y = $20

The set {x,y} contains $30

the power set { {}, {x}, {y}, {x, y} } also contains $30.

$30 = $30

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Sheik:

I didn't see this before my last post. The two sets are definitely not the same, however.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Joe G:

The CONTENTS are the SAME- they are EQUAL.

$30 = $30 so {x,y} has to equal { {}, {x}, {y}, {x, y} }

What part of that don't you understand?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: MichaelJ on July 31 2010,00:32

Is he really that dumb
Posted by: didymos on July 31 2010,01:29

Quote (MichaelJ @ July 30 2010,22:32)
Is he really that dumb
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh,  hell yes:

< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....0977717 >
Posted by: Louis on July 31 2010,03:22

Quote (MichaelJ @ July 31 2010,06:32)
Is he really that dumb
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why yes. Yes he is.

And it hurts.

Louis
Posted by: Joe G on July 31 2010,08:44

Quote (fnxtr @ July 30 2010,16:30)
Bloody hell. He's over on PT now crapping all over the "random responses to Luskin" thread.  Full of sound and fury...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That thread was full of shit already...
Posted by: Joe G on July 31 2010,08:44

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 30 2010,10:09)
< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....ry.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...

Wrong Nicky.

The argument is that blind, undirected processes cannot produce information from scratch nor can those processes increase information.

IOW Nick you are a lying piece of shit.

Now please take me to Court and try to sue me for slander or libel.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's boys an idiot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That makes sense- I'm the idiot because you faggots are lying cowards.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 31 2010,08:45

Quote (Joe G @ July 31 2010,08:44)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 30 2010,10:09)
< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....ry.html >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...

Wrong Nicky.

The argument is that blind, undirected processes cannot produce information from scratch nor can those processes increase information.

IOW Nick you are a lying piece of shit.

Now please take me to Court and try to sue me for slander or libel.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's boys an idiot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That makes sense- I'm the idiot because you faggots are lying cowards.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do a podcast, please?
Posted by: Joe G on July 31 2010,08:46

Quote (socle @ July 30 2010,22:58)
< Advanced set theory: >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Sheik:  

Do you claim that the sets {x,y} and { {}, {x}, {y}, {x, y} } are equal?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Joe G:

Let x = $10 and y = $20

The set {x,y} contains $30

the power set { {}, {x}, {y}, {x, y} } also contains $30.

$30 = $30

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Sheik:

I didn't see this before my last post. The two sets are definitely not the same, however.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Joe G:

The CONTENTS are the SAME- they are EQUAL.

$30 = $30 so {x,y} has to equal { {}, {x}, {y}, {x, y} }

What part of that don't you understand?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What is your issue with what I posted?

Do you have valid resource that says I am wrong?

If so it would help you if you could produce it.

Otherwise your ignorance does not refute what I post.
Posted by: Joe G on July 31 2010,08:46

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 31 2010,08:45)
Quote (Joe G @ July 31 2010,08:44)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 30 2010,10:09)
< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....ry.html >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...

Wrong Nicky.

The argument is that blind, undirected processes cannot produce information from scratch nor can those processes increase information.

IOW Nick you are a lying piece of shit.

Now please take me to Court and try to sue me for slander or libel.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's boys an idiot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That makes sense- I'm the idiot because you faggots are lying cowards.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do a podcast, please?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why? So you can jerk-off to it?
Posted by: Joe G on July 31 2010,08:51

Quote (Mindrover @ July 30 2010,14:49)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 30 2010,10:09)
< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....ry.html >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...

Wrong Nicky.

The argument is that blind, undirected processes cannot produce information from scratch nor can those processes increase information.

IOW Nick you are a lying piece of shit.

Now please take me to Court and try to sue me for slander or libel.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's boys an idiot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On the plus side, it looks like Joe has stopped stalking Oleg.

On the negative, I have read yet another of his "LOOK AT ME!!!!" posts.

Why do I get the mental image of Joe in a soiled tutu and combat boots, jumping up and down in a city square, yelling his blog posts into a bullhorn at passers by?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stalking oleg?

oleg stalks me. OM stalks me. All evotards stalk me.

Heck this thread is proof of that...
Posted by: Joe G on July 31 2010,08:52

Quote (MichaelJ @ July 31 2010,00:32)
Is he really that dumb
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I could be. However it is very noticeable that not one of you evotards can demonstrate that what I posted is wrong.

IOW it appears that you chumps are really that dumb...
Posted by: Zachriel on July 31 2010,08:59

Joe G,

How many elements are in {}?
How many elements are in {{}}?
Posted by: Joe G on July 31 2010,09:06

Quote (Zachriel @ July 31 2010,08:59)
Joe G,

How many elements are in {}?
How many elements are in {{}}?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Operations on the empty set >:

Operations performed on the empty set (as a set of things to be operated upon) are unusual. For example, the sum of the elements of the empty set is zero, but the product of the elements of the empty set is one (see empty product). Ultimately, the results of these operations say more about the operation in question than about the empty set. For instance, zero is the identity element for addition, and one is the identity element for multiplication.

Not that I would expect you to understand any of that.
Posted by: Joe G on July 31 2010,09:08

Let x = $10 and y = $20

The set {x,y} contains $30

the power set { {}, {x}, {y}, {x, y} } also contains $30.

$30 = $30


Does anyone disagree with that?

If you disagree can you provide a valid resource that agrees with you?
Posted by: olegt on July 31 2010,09:11

Hi Joe.  Why don't we move the discussion of the < example with Denton books > here?  

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Michael Denton wrote two books, Evolution: a Theory in Crisis, or E for short, and Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe, or N. The set Books = {E, N} contains two members.

When you ask someone "Which of these books did you read?" you may hear one of four different answers: none, Evolution, Nature's Destiny, or both. Each of the outcomes is a set of books (not a book): an empty set, a set containing one book, or a set containing two books. Formally, Outcomes = {{}, {E}, {N}, {E, N}}.

Clearly, the sets Books and Outcomes are different beasts. Even the sizes are different: two books, four possible outcomes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: dnmlthr on July 31 2010,09:16

Quote (Joe G @ July 31 2010,15:08)
Let x = $10 and y = $20

The set {x,y} contains $30

the power set { {}, {x}, {y}, {x, y} } also contains $30.

$30 = $30


Does anyone disagree with that?

If you disagree can you provide a valid resource that agrees with you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The sum of the elements of the set {x,y} as you defined it is $30.

A set does not equal the result of a computation performed on that set.

ETA: What you're saying is that a bag containing the ingredients for a cake and a cake are the same thing.
Posted by: gravity well on July 31 2010,09:16

joe are you saying that the sum of the members of a set is the only measure of a set?
Posted by: blipey on July 31 2010,09:23

Quote (Joe G @ July 31 2010,09:08)
Let x = $10 and y = $20

The set {x,y} contains $30

the power set { {}, {x}, {y}, {x, y} } also contains $30.

$30 = $30


Does anyone disagree with that?

If you disagree can you provide a valid resource that agrees with you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do I disagree that 30 = 30?

No.

Do I disagree about the the equality of the sets in your example?

Yes.

It's interesting that you would considered these two examples (integers and sets) to be alike.
Posted by: Zachriel on July 31 2010,09:48

Quote (Joe G @ July 31 2010,09:06)
Quote (Zachriel @ July 31 2010,08:59)
Joe G,

How many elements are in {}?
How many elements are in {{}}?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You didn't answer the question.

How many elements are in {}?
How many elements are in {{}}?
Posted by: Zachriel on July 31 2010,09:52

Quote (Joe G @ July 31 2010,09:08)
Let x = $10 and y = $20

The set {x,y} contains $30
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let x = $10 and y = $20. The sum of the elements of {x,y} is $30.
Let x = $12 and y = $18. The sum of the elements of {x,y} is $30.

Two sets are equal if and only if they have precisely the same elements.

Is {10, 20} = {12, 18}?
Posted by: Venus Mousetrap on July 31 2010,09:56

Quote (Joe G @ July 31 2010,09:08)
Let x = $10 and y = $20

The set {x,y} contains $30

the power set { {}, {x}, {y}, {x, y} } also contains $30.

$30 = $30


Does anyone disagree with that?

If you disagree can you provide a valid resource that agrees with you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How comes you know what a set is but not the definition of equality?
Posted by: socle on July 31 2010,10:03

Quote (Joe G @ July 31 2010,09:08)
Let x = $10 and y = $20

The set {x,y} contains $30

the power set { {}, {x}, {y}, {x, y} } also contains $30.

$30 = $30


Does anyone disagree with that?

If you disagree can you provide a valid resource that agrees with you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe,

Here's another way to look at the issue using your money model:

{x, y} stands for an envelope containing a $10 and a $20 bill.

{ {}, {x}, {y}, {x, y} } stands for a large envelope containing four smaller envelopes.  One of the smaller envelopes is empty, one contains a $10 bill, one contains a $20 bill, and the remaining one contains a $10 bill and a $20 bill.

See the difference?
Posted by: olegt on July 31 2010,10:04

On his blog, Joe says:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How many books are in the set {E,N}?

How many books are in its power set {{}, {E}, {N}, {E, N}}?


I say the answer to both questions is 2- there are two books in the set and two books in the power set.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is < not even wrong >.  To establish equality of two sets, we must check whether their members are the same.  They are not.  The members of the former set are E and N.  The members of the latter are {}, {E}, {N}, {E,N}.  Not only are they not the same, even the set sizes (cardinalities) are different.
Posted by: olegt on July 31 2010,10:15

It looks like Joe has < run away > again.  He is not coming back:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hold your breath while you wait.

If you want to discuss something with me this is the place to do so.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Attaboy!
Posted by: carlsonjok on July 31 2010,13:06

Quote (olegt @ July 31 2010,10:15)
It looks like Joe has < run away > again.  He is not coming back:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hold your breath while you wait.

If you want to discuss something with me this is the place to do so.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Attaboy!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shorter Joe:  I can do my Internet Tough Guy act better from behind my momma's skirt.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 31 2010,14:16

Joe,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you want to discuss something with me this is the place to do so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In fact, if you want to discuss something with us then the place to do so is this thread.

Funny how the one place not open to censorship in your favour is also the least frequented of all your hangouts.

Not that funny at all I suppose. How you liking PT? To your taste? Converted anyone yet?
Posted by: fnxtr on July 31 2010,15:20

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 31 2010,12:16)
Joe,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you want to discuss something with me this is the place to do so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In fact, if you want to discuss something with us then the place to do so is this thread.

Funny how the one place not open to censorship in your favour is also the least frequented of all your hangouts.

Not that funny at all I suppose. How you liking PT? To your taste? Converted anyone yet?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He bailed, actually. I guess no-one took him up on his trolling for hits at his site.
Posted by: gravity well on July 31 2010,16:14

man this guy is worse than useless... oh well... i might as well go back to mornington crescent then...
Posted by: MichaelJ on July 31 2010,20:42

Quote (Joe G @ Aug. 01 2010,00:08)
Let x = $10 and y = $20

The set {x,y} contains $30

the power set { {}, {x}, {y}, {x, y} } also contains $30.

$30 = $30


Does anyone disagree with that?

If you disagree can you provide a valid resource that agrees with you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the fact that you are discussing set-theory and decide that the test for set equilavency is based on adding the items of the set shows how dumb or dishonest you are.
Posted by: socle on July 31 2010,23:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< Joe G: >

And I did find this on power sets:


As an example, the power set of {1, 2, 3} is {{1, 2, 3}, {1, 2}, {1, 3}, {2, 3}, {1}, {2}, {3}, ?}. The cardinality of the original set is 3, and the cardinality of the power set is 2[^]3 = 8. This relationship is one of the reasons for the terminology power set.


IOW oleg is exposed as an ******* with an agenda for continuing to deny the difference and insist a power set is a set.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, everyone knows that a power set is only a form of set.
Posted by: Henry J on July 31 2010,23:21

He seems to be confusing a set with the union of the sets that happen to be elements of that set. I don't know if it's even possible for a non-null set to be equal to the union of all its member sets (using the axioms that are more or less standard for set theory, that is).

Henry
Posted by: OgreMkV on Aug. 01 2010,00:39

Quote (Henry J @ July 31 2010,23:21)
He seems to be confusing a set with the union of the sets that happen to be elements of that set. I don't know if it's even possible for a non-null set to be equal to the union of all its member sets (using the axioms that are more or less standard for set theory, that is).

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe Joe just uses different axioms.

He probably thinks an axiom is the spaceship from Wall-E
Posted by: Marion Delgado on Aug. 01 2010,03:37

I was taught in my secular math classes that a power set is a set.

But now I know all power is the Lord's.
Posted by: Zarquon on Aug. 01 2010,04:33

And Lord's belongs to the MCC, So God is an Englishman.
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 01 2010,16:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And Lord's belongs to the MCC, So God is an Englishman.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Does that mean that evolution deniers need to learn English?

Henry
Posted by: fnxtr on Aug. 01 2010,21:16

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 01 2010,14:17)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And Lord's belongs to the MCC, So God is an Englishman.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Does that mean that evolution deniers need to learn English?

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That would be nice.  

Someone would have to print an English<->Gibberish dictionary, though.
Posted by: Robin on Aug. 02 2010,13:05

Quote (socle @ July 30 2010,22:58)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


[blockquote]
Joe G:

Let x = $10 and y = $20

The set {x,y} contains $30

the power set { {}, {x}, {y}, {x, y} } also contains $30.

$30 = $30
[/blockquote]

I'm a little hazy on my set theory these days, but based on Joe's approach, shouldn't the power set be 60?

'cause I get {{0}, {10}, {20}, {30}} = 60

...and 60 /=30


:O
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 02 2010,13:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm a little hazy on my set theory these days, but based on Joe's approach, shouldn't the power set be 60?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only if you Xerox the {x} and {y} when making the {x,y}, and the Treasury Dept. doesn't like it when people do that.  :p
Posted by: socle on Aug. 02 2010,14:16

Quote (Robin @ Aug. 02 2010,13:05)
Quote (socle @ July 30 2010,22:58)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


[blockquote]
Joe G:

Let x = $10 and y = $20

The set {x,y} contains $30

the power set { {}, {x}, {y}, {x, y} } also contains $30.

$30 = $30
[/blockquote]

I'm a little hazy on my set theory these days, but based on Joe's approach, shouldn't the power set be 60?

'cause I get {{0}, {10}, {20}, {30}} = 60

...and 60 /=30


:O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe never spelled out precisely how his operation of converting sets to dollar amounts works, so it's not clear.  But yeah, I think $60 would make more sense.

His position seems to have changed slightly, though:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Sheik:  I think you're learning, Joe, despite yourself. Do you now agreee that {x, y} ? { {}, {x}, {y}, {x, y} }?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Joe:  Hey asshole that has been my position all along.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: socle on Aug. 02 2010,14:19

And the "?" above should actually be a "not equal" symbol.
Posted by: Mindrover on Aug. 02 2010,14:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Joe G:

Let x = $10 and y = $20

The set {x,y} contains $30

the power set { {}, {x}, {y}, {x, y} } also contains $30.

$30 = $30

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Sheik:  I think you're learning, Joe, despite yourself. Do you now agreee that {x, y} != { {}, {x}, {y}, {x, y} }?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Joe:  Hey asshole that has been my position all along.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can only hope Joe has someone else do his taxes.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 02 2010,14:50

He uses Smart Taxes:

< http://www.smartaxes.com/ >
Posted by: Robin on Aug. 02 2010,14:54

[quote=Henry J,Aug. 02 2010,13:34][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm a little hazy on my set theory these days, but based on Joe's approach, shouldn't the power set be 60?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only if you Xerox the {x} and {y} when making the {x,y}, and the Treasury Dept. doesn't like it when people do that.  :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, but that's only if you treat it as an actual set. I got the impression that Joe thought it was a functional condition.

;)
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 03 2010,09:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I got the impression that Joe thought [...]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You did? I had the impression that he avoids doing that...

(Did I say that?)
Posted by: Robin on Aug. 03 2010,12:30

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 03 2010,09:43)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I got the impression that Joe thought [...]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You did? I had the impression that he avoids doing that...

(Did I say that?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oooo...touche!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 04 2010,10:49

You can tell the no comments is killing him:

< https://www.blogger.com/comment....4629653 >
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 04 2010,13:17

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 04 2010,10:49)
You can tell the no comments is killing him:

< https://www.blogger.com/comment....4629653 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does that count?
Posted by: MichaelJ on Aug. 05 2010,01:09

I went to his blog and what an absolute train wreck. Are you sure that he isn't eight years old?

How about "The Four Fundamental Entities of Intelligent Design" where he thinks that plasma is another Entity apart from energy or matter. This almost cost me a keyboard.
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 05 2010,03:40

Quote (MichaelJ @ Aug. 05 2010,07:09)
I went to his blog...

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. Just no. This is what we here call "A Bad Idea".

Some of the hardier TARD Miners brave the wilds of the internet to find precious gems of hard TARD. Personally I find the Zen approach to TARD more effective. There is so much TARD around, and so many fine TARD procurers and gatherers (with well shielded keyboards, monitors and irony meters), that the student of TARD never need move from under his metaphorical blossom filled cherry tree, where the calm contemplation of the TARD may occur. This allows the contemplative TARD student to understand the inner TARD, the tao of the TARD. By allowing the TARD to come to me, I may never get the TARD I want, but I always get the TARD I need.

Of course if you have a laminated keyboard, waxed monitor, and an Ironymatic 3000 HovindProofed LeadShield™ Osmotron Mark 4 Irony Meter (buried in the appropriate irony bunker of course) then feel free to venture to these blogs. Frankly, I gave up going to these places after my fourth irony meter spontaneously combusted. I even went into irony meter design for a while, it's just not worth the effort.

Louis
Posted by: Robin on Aug. 05 2010,09:11

[quote=Louis,Aug. 05 2010,03:40][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No. Just no. This is what we here call "A Bad Idea".

Frankly, I gave up going to these places after my fourth irony meter spontaneously combusted. I even went into irony meter design for a while, it's just not worth the effort.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm with you, Louis. I confess, I just can't do it anymore. When I read just the first line of any blog post from anyone of those tard clowns, I immediately feel like I tripped and feel in poo. It just stinks and I get revolted. I'm sure I need to learn to appreciate it in a different light - seeing it more like comical farce and old slapstick - but I think that takes time.

I with you Louis - the view from under the blossom-laden tree with the the lovely fresh air and a good glass of wine is just fine, thank you.
Posted by: fnxtr on Aug. 05 2010,09:35

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 05 2010,01:40)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Aug. 05 2010,07:09)
I went to his blog...

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. Just no. This is what we here call "A Bad Idea".

Some of the hardier TARD Miners ...
Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So MichaelJ was the TARDcanary?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 05 2010,09:47

I've paid the price.

"When you look into a TARDbyss, the TARDbyss also looks into you"

But, the gems I've found, and brought here - that's got to count for something...  ???
Posted by: SLP on Aug. 05 2010,11:00

Joey claims:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

With that said to measure biological information, ie biological specification, all you have to do is count the coding nucleotides of the genes involved for that functioning system and then multiply by 2 (four possible nucleotides = 2^2).

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, by this measure, there is  no such thing as an 'original' gene and a mutated one with less information.

I wonder if little Joey considered that he just shot down a major YEC/ID claim?
Posted by: Gunthernacus on Aug. 05 2010,11:30

Quote (SLP @ Aug. 05 2010,12:00)
Joey claims:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

With that said to measure biological information, ie biological specification, all you have to do is count the coding nucleotides of the genes involved for that functioning system and then multiply by 2 (four possible nucleotides = 2^2).

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, by this measure, there is  no such thing as an 'original' gene and a mutated one with less information.

I wonder if little Joey considered that he just shot down a major YEC/ID claim?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For a case like that, I think his reasonable request is simply for a live video feed of any mutation as it takes place along with a notarized affidavit from the Teh Designer waiving all purposeful intentions to said mutation.
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 05 2010,11:46

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 05 2010,15:47)
I've paid the price.

"When you look into a TARDbyss, the TARDbyss also looks into you"

But, the gems I've found, and brought here - that's got to count for something...  ???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well you do get those big, big TARD bucks.

And the exposure to TARD has exfoliated you brilliantly, you look 20 years younger. No, really. You do.

Louis
Posted by: DaveH on Aug. 05 2010,11:48

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 05 2010,09:47)
I've paid the price.

"When you look into a TARDbyss, the TARDbyss also looks into you"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





A useful miner's mantra, if the protective shielding fails for any reason:



"TARD is the mind-killer.
TARD is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face the TARD.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the TARD has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain"
Posted by: dnmlthr on Aug. 05 2010,13:35

The set theory according to JoeG thread damn near made me break my nose facepalming. A more naked display of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action is hard to imagine.

Fuck. I get angry just thinking about it.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now I am become Tard, the destroyer of brains.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ETA: Removed quotes.
Posted by: socle on Aug. 05 2010,19:03

Quote (dnmlthr @ Aug. 05 2010,13:35)
The set theory according to JoeG thread damn near made me break my nose facepalming. A more naked display of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action is hard to imagine.

Fuck. I get angry just thinking about it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


it's really a bizarre thread.  It reminds me of debating with afdave---you can show him to be wrong in any number of ways, and he will concede nothing.  

I have to give him credit for not deleting any of my posts, though, when others would have.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Sheik:  Will Upright Biped be joining the discussion? Maybe he'll tell us about his physically inert balls.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Sheik:  Let's say the set of items in your bedroom contains just three elements: a bed, a bureau, and a Justin Bieber poster.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 06 2010,08:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Sheikh > (at bottom of page): Joe, I actually think it's more than likely you're joking here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, he's not. From a previous thread.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Zachriel: Every set is a subset of itself.

< Joe G >: That is false. The empty set is not a subset of itself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not that Joe G is ignorant. That's curable. It's that he refuses to learn.

Addendum



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Joe G >: But yes if A={x,Y} and B={x,y}. Given two sets A and B, blah, blah, blah superset.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe G, can two sets be equal?
Posted by: socle on Aug. 06 2010,10:39

Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 06 2010,08:12)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Sheikh > (at bottom of page): Joe, I actually think it's more than likely you're joking here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, he's not. From a previous thread.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Zachriel: Every set is a subset of itself.

< Joe G >: That is false. The empty set is not a subset of itself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not that Joe G is ignorant. That's curable. It's that he refuses to learn.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, I just noticed the date on that thread:  December 5, 2006, closing in on 4 years ago.  And Joe still hasn't bothered to acquaint himself with elementary set theory.  Which primary school students master in a matter of hours.
Posted by: Robin on Aug. 06 2010,11:45

Quote (socle @ Aug. 06 2010,10:39)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wow, I just noticed the date on that thread:  December 5, 2006, closing in on 4 years ago.  And Joe still hasn't bothered to acquaint himself with elementary set theory.  Which primary school students master in a matter of hours.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I tried reading some of it and my brain locked up. I had to go read some insurance claims just to reboot it. His posts just completely disrupt the fabric of reality; he's so much tard he actually creates a negative force of stupid on other matter nearby. I can't believe Zach and others can actually read his stuff for any length of time without severe medication and/or psychiatric help afterwords.
Posted by: socle on Aug. 06 2010,13:12

Quote (Robin @ Aug. 06 2010,11:45)
His posts just completely disrupt the fabric of reality; he's so much tard he actually creates a negative force of stupid on other matter nearby.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's like the Chuck Norris of stupid---whenever he says something, the universe instantly reorganizes itself to make him wrong.   :D

To be fair, I will give him credit for one thing---he has defended Muslims when they've been attacked by the ignorant on UD.
Posted by: blipey on Aug. 06 2010,16:54

Quote (socle @ Aug. 06 2010,13:12)
Quote (Robin @ Aug. 06 2010,11:45)
His posts just completely disrupt the fabric of reality; he's so much tard he actually creates a negative force of stupid on other matter nearby.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's like the Chuck Norris of stupid---whenever he says something, the universe instantly reorganizes itself to make him wrong.   :D

To be fair, I will give him credit for one thing---he has defended Muslims when they've been attacked by the ignorant on UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, he did claim to be one...
Posted by: socle on Aug. 07 2010,16:39

Well, feck, looks like Joe's bailed, just when we got to his favorite subject, dolls nested hierarchies.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Sheik:  Here are all the dolls put together:

{{{},{}},{},{{},{{},{},{}}}}

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Joe:  Nothing there.

It is mothing but a bunch of {}.

But anyways thank you for proving you are ignorant of nested hierarchies.

I have nothing else to say to you.

bye-bye...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



C'mon Joe, post my comments!  I spent 10 whole minutes on that tree diagram.   :angry:
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 16 2010,07:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Zachriel: Is {} = {{}}?

< Joe G >: Weigh the contents of each and tell me which weighs more....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We wonder about poor Joe G.

{'kilogram of nickels'} = {'kilogram of dimes'}?


Sheikh gives the smack-down.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe G: Then what is the difference between a set that contains nothing and a set that contains a set that contains nothing?

< Sheikh >: There must be some difference. Otherwise why would people write things like < this > and < this >?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: olegt on Aug. 16 2010,07:37

Joe is unable to parse abstract math.  I've tried to explain the sequence object -> set of objects -> set of sets of objects on the example of Denton's books.  We'll see how receptive Joe is to real-life examples.  (The comments are in moderation still.)
Posted by: olegt on Aug. 16 2010,09:24

Joe spends a total of 5 minutes reading my example, digesting it, forming an opinion about it, and typing up his reply.  His verdict?  

Ya see people do not need to understand set theory in order to answer your questions pertaining to those books.

We don't need no stinkin' set theory.  Mwahahaha!  

He then asks again:

What, exactly, is the difference between someone holding nothing and someone holding a set of nothing?

I don't think modern medicine is equipped to help this guy.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Aug. 16 2010,09:29

Quote (olegt @ Aug. 16 2010,09:24)
I don't think modern medicine is equipped to help this guy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, maybe not modern medicine. But therapies from a few generations back might be appropriate.

Posted by: fnxtr on Aug. 16 2010,09:44

Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 16 2010,05:07)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Zachriel: Is {} = {{}}?

< Joe G >: Weigh the contents of each and tell me which weighs more....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ow. Ow, ow, ow.

More like "Which weighs more, a pound of intersection or a pound of union?"

And when someone tries to explain set theory to GI Joe, suddenly it's not important.

You'll notice he bailed out of that PT thread he was getting reamed on, too.
Posted by: olegt on Aug. 16 2010,09:53

Here is my example in which I tried to explain to Joe the difference between an empty set and a set containing an empty set.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here is the difference, Joe.

Let's go back to our favorite example featuring Denton's books, Evolution (E) and Nature's Destiny (N). Books are objects.

We can ask all kinds of questions about books such as this: "Which books did Denton write?" The answer to that question, {E,N}, is also an object, but it is definitely not a book. Rather, it is a set of books.

We can also ask "Which of these books did Joe G read?" The answer to that is also a set of books. It could be {E,N}, but most likely it is {E}. And when we ask "Which of these books did Oleg read?" the answer will again be a set of books, this time an empty set, {}.

So far so good. Now we can go one more level up and ask the Big Question: "What are the possible answers to the question Which Denton's books did you read?" The Big Answer is of course a set of answers. And since each answer is a set of books, the Big Answer is a set of sets of books. In this case, it is {{}, {E}, {N}, {E,N}}. Again, the Big Answer is not a book, and neither it is a set of books. It is a set of answers, or a set of sets of books.

Suppose now we go to a country where only one of Denton's books has been published. When we ask its citizens the question the answers (sets of books) we get are either {} or {E}. The Big Answer (a set of sets of books) is, accordingly, {{}, {E}}.

Finally we travel to a far corner of the Earth, where no one even heard of Denton. The answer to the question is invariably the set of books {}. The Big Answer to the Big Question is the set of sets of books {{}}.

Hope this example is pedagogical.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That didn't help.
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 16 2010,11:30

Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 16 2010,07:07)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Zachriel: Is {} = {{}}?

< Joe G >: Weigh the contents of each and tell me which weighs more....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We wonder about poor Joe G.

{'kilogram of nickels'} = {'kilogram of dimes'}?


Sheikh gives the smack-down.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe G: Then what is the difference between a set that contains nothing and a set that contains a set that contains nothing?

< Sheikh >: There must be some difference. Otherwise why would people write things like < this > and < this >?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On Joe G's blog, we provided a link to the authors of the "authoritative cites." Here's Jaroslav Nešetril, award winning mathematician, at work.

< >

If we wake him, maybe we could ask him how much the empty set weighs.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Aug. 16 2010,11:32

Amusingly Joe says:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The sources don't and making bald statements isn't good enough for me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But all Joe does is make bald statements. V.Amusing.
Posted by: socle on Aug. 16 2010,13:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

oleg: Joe, the entire cladogram is also a clade.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Joe: Not true.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Aug. 16 2010,14:24

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 16 2010,12:32)
Amusingly Joe says:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The sources don't and making bald statements isn't good enough for me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But all Joe does is make bald statements. V.Amusing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bald? In my experience they have plugs or wear an ill-fitting toupee.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 17 2010,11:14

< http://bilbos1.blogspot.com/2007/07/welcome-to-bilbos-blog.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Discovery Institutes wedge document clearly demonstrates that IDism is nothing but a tool to be used to help effectuate a cultural and political revolution to replace humanistic values with those of right-wing christian fundamentalists.

ID says nothing about religion.

ID does NOT require a belief in "God".

An atheist can be an IDist.

I am not a christian. I was but I grew out of it.

ID is based on observation and scientific data.

The DI did not start ID.

The DI's biggest contributor is a christian reconstructionist who would like to see democratic government replaced by an old-testament based theocracy, complete with legalized slavery and execution by stoning of people such as gays, sabbath breakers and rebellious teenagers.

Then why, when the DI explained the "wedge doc" do they flat out state they do NOT want a theocracy?

IOW why take the word of those who misinterpret the document over the word from the DI?

And as sir William has asked- who is the christian reconstructionist behind the curtain?

Or are bald assertions the best you can do?

BTW wouldn't a Christian want new testament based theocracy?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Emphasis mine
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 17 2010,11:59

Sometimes Joe G is just plain funny.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Joe G >: I can just come up with reality-

That is given the theory hoiw can we apply that in the real world?

Again we have two people-

Person A has an empty set

Person B also has an empty set (everyone has an empty set) but B has put that empty set inside of another empty set.

Both A and B are in an otherwise empty room.

You enter the room with the purpose of figuring out who has the empty set and who has the set containing the empty set.

However you cannot ask any questions or say anything at all.

All you have are your powers of observation.

How do you tell which person just has the empty set?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Weigh them? And if it weighs the same as a duck?

< >
Posted by: socle on Aug. 17 2010,12:13

Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 17 2010,11:59)
Sometimes Joe G is just plain funny.

<snip>
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's part of my response to that, still in moderation:


Sheik:  The short answer is, you can't hold the empty set in your hands. It's like I'm talking to a materialist here. :D The empty set is an abstract entity.

Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 17 2010,12:35

Quote (socle @ Aug. 17 2010,12:13)
Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 17 2010,11:59)
Sometimes Joe G is just plain funny.

<snip>
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's part of my response to that, still in moderation:


Sheik:  The short answer is, you can't hold the empty set in your hands. It's like I'm talking to a materialist here. :D The empty set is an abstract entity.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Joe G >: But how big does the box have to be in order to hold nothing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not by weight, but by volume!
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 17 2010,15:25



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Weigh them? And if it weighs the same as a duck?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That could leave him a little down in the mouth?

Quack!
Posted by: fnxtr on Aug. 17 2010,15:53

Hey, Joe, which weighs more, a pound of pi, or a pound of e?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Aug. 17 2010,16:52

Joe sums it all up


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We can never be sure we're observing "nature, operating freely", so it's impossible to falsify ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, Joe. Nobody can falsify ID. Nobody can falsify the idea that invisible unicorns did it either.

So how does that make ID any different from invisible unicorns?

So, you can't falsify it Joe but can you actually provide any evidence for it? Seems like the most you've got is that you can't falsify it. Add it to the list.

ROFL.
Posted by: qetzal on Aug. 17 2010,22:17

Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 17 2010,12:35)
 
Quote (socle @ Aug. 17 2010,12:13)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 17 2010,11:59)
Sometimes Joe G is just plain funny.

<snip>
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's part of my response to that, still in moderation:


Sheik:  The short answer is, you can't hold the empty set in your hands. It's like I'm talking to a materialist here. :D The empty set is an abstract entity.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Joe G >: But how big does the box have to be in order to hold nothing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not by weight, but by volume!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What if the contents have settled during shipping?
Posted by: socle on Aug. 17 2010,23:06

Trying to explain math to Joe:

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTv6fFLVi4Q&feature=related >
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Aug. 18 2010,07:31

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 17 2010,15:25)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Weigh them? And if it weighs the same as a duck?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That could leave him a little down in the mouth?

Quack!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I do not agree with eider of them statements.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 18 2010,09:03

Quote (afarensis @ Aug. 18 2010,07:31)
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 17 2010,15:25)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Weigh them? And if it weighs the same as a duck?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That could leave him a little down in the mouth?

Quack!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I do not agree with eider of them statements.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For goodness drake..
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 18 2010,13:34

Moar LOLs

< https://www.blogger.com/comment....1895068 >
Posted by: Tom Ames on Aug. 18 2010,16:04

Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 17 2010,09:59)
Sometimes Joe G is just plain funny.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Joe G >: I can just come up with reality-

That is given the theory hoiw can we apply that in the real world?

Again we have two people-

Person A has an empty set

Person B also has an empty set (everyone has an empty set) but B has put that empty set inside of another empty set.

Both A and B are in an otherwise empty room.

You enter the room with the purpose of figuring out who has the empty set and who has the set containing the empty set.

However you cannot ask any questions or say anything at all.

All you have are your powers of observation.

How do you tell which person just has the empty set?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Weigh them? And if it weighs the same as a duck?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's not really a merganser to any of Joe's questions.
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 18 2010,22:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's not really a merganser to any of Joe's questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't worry about it - any points made here will roll off like water off a duck's back! :p

Henry
Posted by: fnxtr on Aug. 18 2010,22:38

Don't make fun of Joe. Tard is a serious mallardy.
Posted by: blipey on Aug. 18 2010,22:59

Quote (fnxtr @ Aug. 18 2010,22:38)
Don't make fun of Joe. Tard is a serious mallardy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nothing a Quack couldn't fix.
Posted by: Pilchard on Aug. 19 2010,02:56

Quote (blipey @ Aug. 19 2010,04:59)
Quote (fnxtr @ Aug. 18 2010,22:38)
Don't make fun of Joe. Tard is a serious mallardy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nothing a Quack couldn't fix.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On the contrary, I think he needs a real duckter.
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 19 2010,03:11

Don't mock Joe, science is really 'canard.

Louis
Posted by: sledgehammer on Aug. 19 2010,14:32

Ignore him.  He's just and old coot with ruffled feathers.
Posted by: fnxtr on Aug. 19 2010,18:21

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 19 2010,01:11)
Don't mock Joe, science is really 'canard.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


At first I thought you were just stretching it, then I recognized the silent "f". Nice.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Aug. 19 2010,20:43

Quote (fnxtr @ Aug. 19 2010,18:21)
 
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 19 2010,01:11)
Don't mock Joe, science is really 'canard.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


At first I thought you were just stretching it, then I recognized the silent "f". Nice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, that was quite brilliant. Even if it was part French.

We are not worthy!


Posted by: Louis on Aug. 20 2010,02:51

I express much gratitude twice. These coordinates of spacetime are my location for at least seven rotations of this planet. Please donate a gratuity for excellent service to your specific serving person. Do not forget to sample the exquisite delight that is the cooked flesh of a milk fed young male bovine of a breed typically used for dairy produce slaughtered prior to it living for 20 weeks.

Louis
Posted by: carlsonjok on Aug. 20 2010,07:41

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 20 2010,02:51)
Do not forget to sample the exquisite delight that is the cooked flesh of a milk fed young male bovine of a breed typically used for dairy produce slaughtered prior to it living for 20 weeks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: socle on Aug. 20 2010,10:37

Zachriel posts his example patrilineage in tree form:



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe:  I have never seen any tree that looks like that.

And there aren't any trees which grow from the top down as your example depicts.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: fnxtr on Aug. 20 2010,10:43

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 20 2010,00:51)
I express much gratitude twice. These coordinates of spacetime are my location for at least seven rotations of this planet. Please donate a gratuity for excellent service to your specific serving person. Do not forget to sample the exquisite delight that is the cooked flesh of a milk fed young male bovine of a breed typically used for dairy produce slaughtered prior to it living for 20 weeks.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My brother did a photoshop of a cow in a rainforest for Adbusters.
The caption: "I'm dying for a Whopper!"
Posted by: fnxtr on Aug. 20 2010,10:44

Quote (socle @ Aug. 20 2010,08:37)
Zachriel posts his example patrilineage in tree form:



   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe:  I have never seen any tree that looks like that.

And there aren't any trees which grow from the top down as your example depicts.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, Joe has got be pretending to be that stupid.  He's just yankin' yer chain.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Aug. 20 2010,10:53

Quote (fnxtr @ Aug. 20 2010,10:44)
Okay, Joe has got be pretending to be that stupid.  He's just yankin' yer chain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, he is that stupid. Guaranteed. Anyone who argues that hail is not water is stupider than a box of rocks.

There is a marvelous paper in the online section of Evolution: Education & Outreach this summer, entitled "Teaching Tree-Thinking to Undergraduate Biology Students", by Richard Meisel. it covers a lot of the common misconceptions that students have about phylogenetic trees, and gives some pedagogical strategies for teaching past those misconceptions. I don't know about access to the paper (free or fee-based), but here's a < link > that you can try.

It won't help Joe, however.
Posted by: socle on Aug. 20 2010,11:06

Now Joe's asking where the trunk and roots are.  lol.  Next he'll be complaining that there's no bark, and that no birds are nesting in it.  
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Aug. 20 2010,11:25

Quote (socle @ Aug. 20 2010,11:06)
Now Joe's asking where the trunk and roots are.  lol.  Next he'll be complaining that there's no bark, and that no birds are nesting in it.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So the miniseries title Roots was not referring to genealogy?

IDiot.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 20 2010,11:36

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Aug. 20 2010,11:25)
Quote (socle @ Aug. 20 2010,11:06)
Now Joe's asking where the trunk and roots are.  lol.  Next he'll be complaining that there's no bark, and that no birds are nesting in it.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So the miniseries title Roots was not referring to genealogy?

IDiot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Linky? Please!
Posted by: J-Dog on Aug. 20 2010,11:45

Quote (socle @ Aug. 20 2010,11:06)
Now Joe's asking where the trunk and roots are.  lol.  Next he'll be complaining that there's no bark, and that no birds are nesting in it.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But I bet he can see the moths that Darwinists glued to the branches, right?
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 20 2010,11:51

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 20 2010,16:53)
Quote (fnxtr @ Aug. 20 2010,10:44)
Okay, Joe has got be pretending to be that stupid.  He's just yankin' yer chain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, he is that stupid. Guaranteed. Anyone who argues that hail is not water is stupider than a box of rocks.

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ahhhh the eternal dilemma. Is Joe (and his ideological ilk) a total fucking moron or is Joe just wasting our time by being a total trolling joke?

Personally, I'm going for both. What an utterly pointless human being he really is.

Louis
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Aug. 20 2010,11:58

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 20 2010,11:51)
Personally, I'm going for both. What an utterly pointless human being he really is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's mostly right. Except for the human being part. Personally I think he is an empty set.
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 20 2010,12:13

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 20 2010,17:58)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 20 2010,11:51)
Personally, I'm going for both. What an utterly pointless human being he really is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's mostly right. Except for the human being part. Personally I think he is an empty set.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ouch! Harsh!

But entirely fair and accurate.

I shall be guided by your greater wisdom and experience in this matter.

I think people like Joe need a word. Simple, short and to the point. Something that illustrates their utter uselessness. Inspired by your mathematical (and topical) choice I shall humbly suggest "Null". Either as an adjective or a noun, I feel it would work.

Louis
Posted by: socle on Aug. 20 2010,12:23

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 20 2010,11:36)
   
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Aug. 20 2010,11:25)
   
Quote (socle @ Aug. 20 2010,11:06)
Now Joe's asking where the trunk and roots are.  lol.  Next he'll be complaining that there's no bark, and that no birds are nesting in it.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So the miniseries title Roots was not referring to genealogy?

IDiot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Linky? Please!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




< Here's > a link to the page.  I don't see how to link to the specific post, but it's around #707 or so.  (If that's what you're requesting).
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 20 2010,12:23

Quote (fnxtr @ Aug. 20 2010,10:44)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe:  I have never seen any tree that looks like that.

And there aren't any trees which grow from the top down as your example depicts.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, Joe has got be pretending to be that stupid.  He's just yankin' yer chain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Zachriel: < None? None at all? >


< Joe G >: That/ those is/ are growing in a few directions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, that's sort of the way it is with trees (though in this case, all of the branches are below the base of the trunk).
Posted by: olegt on Aug. 22 2010,21:00

The thread on < nested hierarchies and set theory > at Joe's blog has grown to 757 comments.  This is one gigantic monument to teh stupid.  

Here is one of my favorites, where Joe is trying to tell the world that an empty set {} is no different from a set containing an empty set {{}}.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again we have two people-

Person A has an empty set

Person B also has an empty set (everyone has an empty set) but B has put that empty set inside of another empty set.

Both A and B are in an otherwise empty room.

You enter the room with the purpose of figuring out who has the empty set and who has the set containing the empty set.

However you cannot ask any questions or say anything at all.

All you have are your powers of observation.

How do you tell which person just has the empty set?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This must be the zen of stupid.  

I also love Joe's inimitable writing style.  His paragraphs are always one sentence long.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Aug. 23 2010,03:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anyone who argues that hail is not water is stupider than a box of rocks.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, but is he the same size as a box of rocks?
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 23 2010,08:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Zachriel: We infer monophyletic relationships from characteristics, but monophyly is defined in terms of ancestry.

< Joe G >: How it is defined is irrelevant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How precious. We suppose it only matters if you care to understand what people mean by their words.
Posted by: socle on Aug. 23 2010,10:04

Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 23 2010,08:49)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Zachriel: We infer monophyletic relationships from characteristics, but monophyly is defined in terms of ancestry.

< Joe G >: How it is defined is irrelevant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How precious. We suppose it only matters if you care to understand what people mean by their words.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's especially hilarious given how he clings to that so-called "definition" on the ISSS page.
Posted by: Ra-Úl on Aug. 23 2010,19:28

Quote (olegt @ Aug. 22 2010,21:00)
The thread on < nested hierarchies and set theory > at Joe's blog has grown to 757 comments.  This is one gigantic monument to teh stupid.  

Here is one of my favorites, where Joe is trying to tell the world that an empty set {} is no different from a set containing an empty set {{}}.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again we have two people-

Person A has an empty set

Person B also has an empty set (everyone has an empty set) but B has put that empty set inside of another empty set.

Both A and B are in an otherwise empty room.

You enter the room with the purpose of figuring out who has the empty set and who has the set containing the empty set.

However you cannot ask any questions or say anything at all.

All you have are your powers of observation.

How do you tell which person just has the empty set?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This must be the zen of stupid.  

I also love Joe's inimitable writing style.  His paragraphs are always one sentence long.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Didn't Beckett write a paper on this? Or maybe it was a play . . .
Posted by: mitschlag on Aug. 24 2010,16:39

My hypothesis is that Joe is an accomplished attention whore.

He enjoys pulling the chains of us earnest, academic types who have trouble resisting the challenge of correcting error.  Especially when error is so egregious.

Of course, the joke is on him, as well, but he doesn't care  as long as he gets attention.

And he's made a name for himself.  Pity.
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 26 2010,08:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
blipey: Hebrew Mythology, please reference the Bible (any version you'd like). God created the Earth, the Heavens, Man out of clay, Woman out of Man's rib, and so on.

< Joe G >: Hebrews only reference the Torah- not the Bible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The < Torah >, also known as the Pentateuch, refers to the Five Books of Moses ... whose names in English are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. It starts like this: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Joe G sums up his best argument.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Joe G >: IOE Erik you are dense and a fucking liar.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Kattarina98 on Aug. 31 2010,05:54

Thanks to Corny's liberal moderation, we get some nice examples of Joe G's foul mouth:

About < Anthony Flew's conversion >:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
t was only "controversial" to the hardcore atheists with a hard-on for Flew.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Mocking >another poster:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Thorton's position >:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I spare you a long list of his comments, it's just the usual blind, chemical process tard.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Sep. 01 2010,08:37

AHAHAHAHA!  Joe's having a complete meltdown over at < Corny's place >!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe G said...

thorton is a low-life child molester suffering from the effects of syphilis...

troy is his accomplice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe G said...

   On other forums thorton and troy have bragged about the number of children they have molested.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



:D   :D   :D   :D   :D
Posted by: didymos on Sep. 01 2010,08:47

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Sep. 01 2010,06:37)
AHAHAHAHA!  Joe's having a complete meltdown over at < Corny's place >!

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe G said...

thorton is a low-life child molester suffering from the effects of syphilis...

troy is his accomplice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe G said...

   On other forums thorton and troy have bragged about the number of children they have molested.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



:D   :D   :D   :D   :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, I saw that.  He was claiming that his last job was "a research scientist."  This was greeted with...skepticism.  Joe didn't like that much.
Posted by: didymos on Sep. 01 2010,08:52

Well, that certainly < worked out > well for Joe.  Thorton just thought it was funny.  After that Joe has two posts in a row which read "This post was removed by the author."
Posted by: dogdidit on Sep. 01 2010,09:46

Quote (didymos @ Sep. 01 2010,08:52)
Well, that certainly < worked out > well for Joe.  Thorton just thought it was funny.  After that Joe has two posts in a row which read "This post was removed by the author."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Make that three in a row. And then another, later. Pulling them back to fix the typos, no doubt.

< More lulz from that thread: >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Kyler said...

Some Joe G science:

Joe G at ARN

"That doesn't count the experiments I conduct in my basement. Some labs would be jealous of the equipment I house & use there.

For example I now know that ticks are more attracted to watermelon rinds then they are to orange peels or orange slices. I also know that dragonflies play."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That basement must be one hellacious pig-sty. No wonder he gargles with bleach. Probably bathes in it, too, after every trip downstairs to check out his "experiments".
Posted by: fnxtr on Sep. 01 2010,10:14

Quote (dogdidit @ Sep. 01 2010,07:46)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Kyler said...

Some Joe G science:

Joe G at ARN

"That doesn't count the experiments I conduct in my basement. Some labs would be jealous of the equipment I house & use there.

For example I now know that ticks are more attracted to watermelon rinds then they are to orange peels or orange slices. I also know that dragonflies play."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That basement must be one hellacious pig-sty. No wonder he gargles with bleach. Probably bathes in it, too, after every trip downstairs to check out his "experiments".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"What do you mean your basement?!?" -- Joe's mom.
Posted by: socle on Sep. 01 2010,10:27

More abstract thinking fail:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Zachriel:  The leaves on a tree when grouped by branch and stem form a nested hierarchy.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Joe: I would love to see you write that one up-

IOW Zach time to put your money where your mouth is- show us the nested hierarchy of a full grown hemlock.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Sep. 01 2010,10:47

WAY too much tard for me. I am one of these impatient types, and the only thing that comes to mind when reading such stupid ramble is to smash my laptop.

In deference to my ever-thinning wallet, I will cut off a bit on that tardmine for a while...
Posted by: dogdidit on Sep. 01 2010,11:31

Quote (fnxtr @ Sep. 01 2010,10:14)
 
Quote (dogdidit @ Sep. 01 2010,07:46)
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Kyler said...

Some Joe G science:

Joe G at ARN

"That doesn't count the experiments I conduct in my basement. Some labs would be jealous of the equipment I house & use there.

For example I now know that ticks are more attracted to watermelon rinds then they are to orange peels or orange slices. I also know that dragonflies play."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That basement must be one hellacious pig-sty. No wonder he gargles with bleach. Probably bathes in it, too, after every trip downstairs to check out his "experiments".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"What do you mean your basement?!?" -- Joe's mom.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe's mom is in the basement. Been sitting in a rocking chair. For a looooooooooong time...
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 06 2010,10:17

< https://www.blogger.com/comment....4132195 >


Posted by: Robin on Oct. 06 2010,11:08

[quote=Richardthughes,Oct. 06 2010,10:17][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< https://www.blogger.com/comment....4132195 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Clearly Joe is in marketing and not design:

Richard: It's not efficient because it's massively redundant.

JoeG: Being redundant can be a design feature.

JoeG: If there is failure to one then the other takes over.

Earth to Joe - that might make sense if the environment were infinite - like say in some mythical heaven - but here in this universe, we have a finite environment. This universe also happens to be material, which means things take up actual space. Many of the same type of thing doesn't then create redundancy in most cases - nope it just creates clutter and lack of diversity. Thus, it is inefficient. Clearly only a complete nincompoop would design anything like this.

Richard: How many galaxies do and stars do we need for discovery?

JoeG: As many as it takes.

Well clearly in your case, Joe, you will continue to ignore reality no matter how many galaxies are presented for you to discovery.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 06 2010,12:07

Quote (dogdidit @ Sep. 01 2010,12:31)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Sep. 01 2010,10:14)
   
Quote (dogdidit @ Sep. 01 2010,07:46)
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Kyler said...

Some Joe G science:

Joe G at ARN

"That doesn't count the experiments I conduct in my basement. Some labs would be jealous of the equipment I house & use there.

For example I now know that ticks are more attracted to watermelon rinds then they are to orange peels or orange slices. I also know that dragonflies play."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That basement must be one hellacious pig-sty. No wonder he gargles with bleach. Probably bathes in it, too, after every trip downstairs to check out his "experiments".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"What do you mean your basement?!?" -- Joe's mom.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe's mom is in the basement. Been sitting in a rocking chair. For a looooooooooong time...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 06 2010,12:57

Moar_Funs:

< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....nt.html >
Posted by: REC on Oct. 06 2010,17:01

Proposed new rule-

If, by Comment 10, JoeG is the only one left defending the original blog post, it is deem falsified.

< Lols >
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 07 2010,11:02

Quote (REC @ Oct. 06 2010,17:01)
Proposed new rule-

If, by Comment 10, JoeG is the only one left defending the original blog post, it is deem falsified.

< Lols >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Slightly rephrased, I present JoeTard's Law:

As JoeG's posts become more frequent in a discussion and include more emotionally-laced epithets and derogatory comments, the probability that he is wrong approaches 1.

Corollary 1: As JoeG's such discussions continue, the probability that JoeG will attempt to move the goal posts approaches 1.


----

ETA: Corrected incorrect (though similar sounding) word and added corollary.
Posted by: Ptaylor on Oct. 07 2010,16:54

< Here's > a good laugh over on Corny's blog (context: discovery of Tiktaalik roseae):
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe G said...

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   Zachriel:
   So imprecise that researchers spent years looking in a specific strata in the Canadian arctic to find the predicted fossil.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



   They had no business looking there.

   The data should have led them to some other place and strata to find what they were looking for.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(My embolderation)
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 08 2010,07:06

Quote (Robin @ Oct. 07 2010,12:02)
Slightly rephrased, I present JoeTard's Law:

As JoeG's posts become more frequent in a discussion and include more emotionally-laced epithets and derogatory comments, the probability that he is wrong approaches 1.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm.

But isn't the probability that he is wrong 1 with his first sentence?
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 08 2010,10:29

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 08 2010,07:06)
Quote (Robin @ Oct. 07 2010,12:02)
Slightly rephrased, I present JoeTard's Law:

As JoeG's posts become more frequent in a discussion and include more emotionally-laced epithets and derogatory comments, the probability that he is wrong approaches 1.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm.

But isn't the probability that he is wrong 1 with his first sentence?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Uhh...I figured I'd be charitable? Plus, I really really really do think that Joe has about a 30% chance of being accurate on something. It's like the clock observation - he's likely correct at least twice a day.

---

Edit: Removed duplicate
Posted by: REC on Oct. 10 2010,12:50

Quote (Robin @ Oct. 08 2010,10:29)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 08 2010,07:06)
 
Quote (Robin @ Oct. 07 2010,12:02)
Slightly rephrased, I present JoeTard's Law:

As JoeG's posts become more frequent in a discussion and include more emotionally-laced epithets and derogatory comments, the probability that he is wrong approaches 1.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm.

But isn't the probability that he is wrong 1 with his first sentence?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Uhh...I figured I'd be charitable? Plus, I really really really do think that Joe has about a 30% chance of being accurate on something. It's like the clock observation - he's likely correct at least twice a day.

---

Edit: Removed duplicate
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sometimes it seems JoeG hits truth totally by accident:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Science is restricted only to figuring out the reality behind whatever it is being investigated.

Period, end of story.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Umm...ok? >

There might be a more nuanced point there....but I'm not looking for it when his next posts devolve to:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So troy gets syphilis from doing it with monkeys- troy passes it on to throton- neither get treatment and now have rotted brains as a result.

I don't feel sorry for them they got what they deserved...

LoL!!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



p.s. Some oddities from Hunter in the same thread:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not in favor of teaching ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Tell that to the Disco Tute. >

He later explains that he believes ID is philosophy, to be taught at higher levels only.

And mirroring JoeG:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Or science can restrict itself to naturalism and maintain realism, but in that case it must forfeit completeness (it is not guaranteed to be able to investigate all phenomena).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Umm.....yeah. NOMA anyone? And your supernatural designer that designs in a way to make things look evolved ain't a phenomenon science can/will investigate!
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Oct. 10 2010,15:01

Quote (Robin @ Oct. 08 2010,10:29)
 
Sometimes it seems JoeG hits truth totally by accident:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Science is restricted only to figuring out the reality behind whatever it is being investigated.

Period, end of story.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Umm...ok? >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, Hit and Run!  :p
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 11 2010,12:37

WATERLOO!

< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....er.html >


Reproduced in full:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Five Years After Dover
-
Well here it is, the Fall of 2010, five years after the Dover School Board/ Kitzmiller trial in PA.

And guess what?

The anti-IDists STILL don't have any positive evidence for their position and thepositive case for Intelligent Design has become even stronger!

This is why IDists love scientific research- the more we look, the more we know and the better ID looks.

CSI runs deep in biology- allegedly simple bacteria have complex communication and packet swapping networks.

All IDists need to do is convince some teacher in that school district to discuss ID in the classroom.

The evos will flip out and this will be back in Court.

Now that we know their tactics- they can't change because they don't have anything else- we can beat them like a rug.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: damitall on Oct. 11 2010,15:04

The positive case for ID has become even stronger?

In the last 5 years?

How? What's changed? Has anything even interesting, let alone new, come out of the ID "movement" in the last 5 years?

Must have missed it
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Oct. 11 2010,16:26

Quote (damitall @ Oct. 11 2010,15:04)
The positive case for ID has become even stronger?

In the last 5 years?

How? What's changed? Has anything even interesting, let alone new, come out of the ID "movement" in the last 5 years?

Must have missed it
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


dFSCI, dude!  Gotta keep up with the latest advances.
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 11 2010,16:35

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Oct. 11 2010,14:26)
Quote (damitall @ Oct. 11 2010,15:04)
The positive case for ID has become even stronger?

In the last 5 years?

How? What's changed? Has anything even interesting, let alone new, come out of the ID "movement" in the last 5 years?

Must have missed it
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


dFSCI, dude!  Gotta keep up with the latest advances.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And farty noises.  Don't forget the farty noises.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 11 2010,16:49

Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 11 2010,15:35)
And farty noises.  Don't forget the farty noises.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, cause America needs the gas!!111!!!one!!
Posted by: Badger3k on Oct. 11 2010,19:02

Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 11 2010,16:35)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Oct. 11 2010,14:26)
Quote (damitall @ Oct. 11 2010,15:04)
The positive case for ID has become even stronger?

In the last 5 years?

How? What's changed? Has anything even interesting, let alone new, come out of the ID "movement" in the last 5 years?

Must have missed it
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


dFSCI, dude!  Gotta keep up with the latest advances.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And farty noises.  Don't forget the farty noises.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I downloaded the free "fart piano" app for my iPad!  Does this mean I have to be an IDer now, or do I first have to make a video?  It isn't contagious, is it?

Although... if I combine the fart piano and skeptics bingo, it might make the perfect app when reading UD!
Posted by: Ptaylor on Oct. 13 2010,16:39

For the record, over at < Corny's blog >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe G said...

   That said the fusion could be an actual event- something that did become fixed- 48 down to 46.

   Fine, but that still isn't evidence of common ancestry between chimps and humans.

   IOW the original population of humans- Adam and Eve- had 48- then somewhere along that line the fusion occurred and became fixed just as you said.

   Another possibility is the fusion was designd in as part of a package that provides reproductive isolation for similarly designed genomes/ organisms.

   And as for waving ahnds- that is what you guys do- you think you are jedi knights who can wave their hands and people will just take you word for it.

   That only works with weak-minded fools- troy, thorton, zachriel, et al....

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who'd have thought it? - Joe the non religious Muslim Christian bible literalist.
My bolding, and a hat tip to Thorton on the ridiculous evolutionists-only-won-Dover-by-selling-their-souls thread.
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 13 2010,17:56

Moar < JoeG >,verging on a meltdown after Thorton's taunting:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yeah right lying evotard thorton-

I have more evidence that your are a child molestor than you could ever get showing I am a YEC...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Thorton > meets bait with bait:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you believe in the talking snake too YEC Joe?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Of course, < Joe > can't help but bite:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I bet you talk to your boyfriend's "snake" every day...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ah yes.  The old "UR GAY" gambit.  Unfortunately, < Thorton > is too wily for that:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How did the "Intelligent Designer" design the Tower of Babel YEC Joe?


* I'm conducting a scientific experiment here. I'm trying to get Joe to generate enough flying spittle to short out his keyboard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Joe >, of course, is a complete dipshit:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How did your boyfriend infect you with herpes and aids thorton?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's still going.  JoeG is sticking to the whole "UR GAY AND HAVE THE AIDS" strategery, despite it never once working...ever.
Posted by: REC on Oct. 13 2010,19:49

JoeG has done more damage to that blog then Hunter's inanities and allowing thinking people to comment combined. Times a million.

Literally, no one is left but JoeG and people watching the train-wreck. Not even BA77 and the standard hallelujah chorus are showing up much.
Posted by: Ptaylor on Oct. 13 2010,19:50

didymos, you must have visited just before Joe delivered his < coup de grâce >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe G said...

   Child molesting thorton is upset because it lost its "primo" job as a mall cop trainee because it was soliciting sex from little boys in the mall bathrooms.

   Get over it...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Powerful argument there, Joe.
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 13 2010,21:46

Quote (Ptaylor @ Oct. 13 2010,17:50)
didymos, you must have visited just before Joe delivered his < coup de grâce >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe G said...

   Child molesting thorton is upset because it lost its "primo" job as a mall cop trainee because it was soliciting sex from little boys in the mall bathrooms.

   Get over it...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Powerful argument there, Joe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mighty JoeG: the man who never met a fallacy he didn't like.
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 13 2010,21:50

Quote (REC @ Oct. 13 2010,17:49)
JoeG has done more damage to that blog then Hunter's inanities and allowing thinking people to comment combined. Times a million.

Literally, no one is left but JoeG and people watching the train-wreck. Not even BA77 and the standard hallelujah chorus are showing up much.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ha, ha. < Thorton > either read your mind, or read your comment:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I wonder if Dr. Hunter realizes that Joe G's infantile behavior has done more to kill serious discussion on this blog than all other factors combined. Even the UD IDiots won't come here anymore. Joe himself is way too self-obsessed to realize it.

Good job Joe. You're still the most appropriate spokeman IDC ever had.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ID predicts Joe says something about Thorton being gay and/or a child molester.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Oct. 13 2010,22:44

Quote (REC @ Oct. 13 2010,17:49)
JoeG has done more damage to that blog then Hunter's inanities and allowing thinking people to comment combined. Times a million.

Literally, no one is left but JoeG and people watching the train-wreck. Not even BA77 and the standard hallelujah chorus are showing up much.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If it were anybody but Joe, one might even think that the  thread hijacking was to actually prevent a serious discussion that wasn't going well for the disruptor.  But with Joe, I think it's like wrestling with a pig:  you get dragged into the mud, and the pig likes it.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 14 2010,09:29

ID is WAY popular:

< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....er.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At 8:38 PM,  blipey said…

Oooh, too bad! That meme is old (even for you). You are not answerable to anyone, Joe.

Now, how about just 2 of the 1000s of people who know what you're doing? Surely you can remember 2 names?

 
At 8:51 PM,  Joe G said…

I can remember most of their names.

25 are named Joe

There are 15 Carols

4 Ethans

7 Phils

5 Jills

17 Jeffs


OK that is more than 3.

 
At 8:59 PM,  Joe G said…

And Steves and Stephens, they're part of the group.

One Shawn, and 2 Seans

14 Mikes, 11 Bills, 11 Petes, 14 Sues, 23 varieties of Chrises, one Hal, 2 Arts, 4 Jeans, 5 Berts/ Burts.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 14 2010,09:50

Those must be the names of the inflatable love dolls Joe keeps in his basement.

Joe's a popular guy!

:p
Posted by: Badger3k on Oct. 14 2010,10:14

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 14 2010,09:50)
Those must be the names of the inflatable love dolls Joe keeps in his basement.

Joe's a popular guy!

:p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


25 of them are variations of his own name.  No one told him he couldn't count himself.
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 14 2010,11:07

Quote (Badger3k @ Oct. 14 2010,10:14)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 14 2010,09:50)
Those must be the names of the inflatable love dolls Joe keeps in his basement.

Joe's a popular guy!

:p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


25 of them are variations of his own name.  No one told him he couldn't count himself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sock puppets.
Posted by: Pilchard on Oct. 14 2010,11:47

Quote (Robin @ Oct. 14 2010,17:07)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You'd understand why Joe counts as 25 Joes if you took the effort to understand set theory like he does.
Posted by: rhmc on Oct. 15 2010,18:58

at least Joe is discrete about it.
Posted by: blipey on Oct. 15 2010,20:13

JoeTard admits that < the universe is not designed! >

The relevant part:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So if you can get such a thing started I would expect a totally chaotic universe, with things popping in and out of existence, for me that would be evidence for a non-designed universe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Vacuum energy proves that the universe is not designed.  Case closed (I guess).
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 15 2010,20:27

Quote (blipey @ Oct. 15 2010,18:13)
Vacuum energy proves that the universe is not designed.  Case closed (I guess).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ID predicts Joe picks up the goalposts and says he didn't mean that, assface , and IOW, you're a liar and still have no positive evidence for your position and UR GAY.
Posted by: blipey on Oct. 15 2010,20:36

Quote (didymos @ Oct. 15 2010,20:27)
Quote (blipey @ Oct. 15 2010,18:13)
Vacuum energy proves that the universe is not designed.  Case closed (I guess).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ID predicts Joe picks up the goalposts and says he didn't mean that, assface , and IOW, you're a liar and still have no positive evidence for your position and UR GAY.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, if I had a nickle...
Posted by: blipey on Oct. 15 2010,21:02

Hmmmm.  I guess vacuum energy and virtual particles are fairy tales.  Casimir Effect?  Never happened.  Truly a bizarre defense.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Oct. 17 2010,12:44

Joe made an appearance today on the < Amazon thread > for Meyer's atrocious book. I dunno if this is a drive-by, or if he will be entertaining us there for a while!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 17 2010,19:55

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 17 2010,12:44)
Joe made an appearance today on the < Amazon thread > for Meyer's atrocious book. I dunno if this is a drive-by, or if he will be entertaining us there for a while!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


His reviews and comments don't seem well received:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Helpful votes received on reviews, lists & guides: 5% (8 of 169)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



8 seems high!
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 18 2010,12:37

Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 17 2010,17:55)
His reviews and comments don't seem well received:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Helpful votes received on reviews, lists & guides: 5% (8 of 169)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



8 seems high!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Based on previous performance, 8 seems reasonable.

Joe Gallien
Joe G
JoeG
J O'Eg
Goe J
ID Guy
Yug Di
Socky McSock

And he hasn't even brought in his 25 "friends" named Joe yet.
Posted by: Ptaylor on Oct. 18 2010,16:40

Heh, still on the < Amazon thread > Joe clarifies his position on the ice/water divide. In response to David A Rintoul:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But since I am arguing with a person who believes that ice is not water, I'll just stop here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Joe responds:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
David:
"No, quite obviously it isn't, as I've shown you."

You haven't shown anything.

And ice is ice- made fom water yes, but water is a liquid.

Why do you think we have different words if it is the same thng?

Ice is frozen water david.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My emphasis.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 18 2010,16:46

Poppycock! Water is made from melted ice.

And don't start with that 'condensed steam' nonsense, you splitters!
Posted by: sledgehammer on Oct. 18 2010,20:25

Ask him if a single molecule of water is a solid, liquid or a gas.
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 18 2010,21:19

Quote (sledgehammer @ Oct. 18 2010,18:25)
Ask him if a single molecule of water is a solid, liquid or a gas.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Based on Joe's oeuvre, I'm gonna predict that he says it depends on whether the molecule comes from some ice, water, or steam, 'cause they're all different and stuff.  He may or may not mention his belief in the homosexuality of the questioner, but odds are good.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 19 2010,02:57

It's funny how Joe and the rest of the UD regulars even knew about that thread. It's almost as if they all read this site.....
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Oct. 19 2010,06:53

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 19 2010,02:57)
It's funny how Joe and the rest of the UD regulars even knew about that thread. It's almost as if they all read this site.....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And now he wants to talk about cake recipes!

Somebody needs to dig out that history and tweak him a bit. So much tard, so little time...
Posted by: blipey on Oct. 19 2010,08:59

Perhaps even stupider than the cake nonsense, Joe now tries tell us what qualifies as a thing and what does not.  Cats are apparently things but perhaps not--depending on what criteria Joe wants to use.  Virtual particles are not things but maybe they are--if you use the same criteria Joe occasionally uses for cats....

< Cats, Vacuum energy, and things >
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 19 2010,09:33

Quote (didymos @ Oct. 18 2010,22:19)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Oct. 18 2010,18:25)
Ask him if a single molecule of water is a solid, liquid or a gas.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Based on Joe's oeuvre, I'm gonna predict that he says it depends on whether the molecule comes from some ice, water, or steam, 'cause they're all different and stuff.  He may or may not mention his belief in the homosexuality of the questioner, but odds are good.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Also depends on what size the water is. You know, steam is bigger than ice.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 19 2010,09:52

And ice is bigger than water? (At normal pressures, anyway.)
Posted by: blipey on Oct. 19 2010,10:10

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 19 2010,09:33)
Quote (didymos @ Oct. 18 2010,22:19)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Oct. 18 2010,18:25)
Ask him if a single molecule of water is a solid, liquid or a gas.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Based on Joe's oeuvre, I'm gonna predict that he says it depends on whether the molecule comes from some ice, water, or steam, 'cause they're all different and stuff.  He may or may not mention his belief in the homosexuality of the questioner, but odds are good.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Also depends on what size the water is. You know, steam is bigger than ice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But it also weighs less.  Not to mention that it's spelled different.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 19 2010,10:12

Joe G caught in a quotemine?

(or maybe its just different versions?)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I love me some quotemine!

next paragraph:

"Natural selection is the necessary outcome of discernible and often quanitifiable causes..."

And please keep reading to ensure I'm not quotemining.

< http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false >

Right - cross posting at AtBC so we can laugh at your quotemmining.

Also - half of your quote doesn't exist in the version I'm looking at in google books.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Texas Teach on Oct. 19 2010,18:15

Quote (blipey @ Oct. 19 2010,10:10)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 19 2010,09:33)
Quote (didymos @ Oct. 18 2010,22:19)
 
Quote (sledgehammer @ Oct. 18 2010,18:25)
Ask him if a single molecule of water is a solid, liquid or a gas.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Based on Joe's oeuvre, I'm gonna predict that he says it depends on whether the molecule comes from some ice, water, or steam, 'cause they're all different and stuff.  He may or may not mention his belief in the homosexuality of the questioner, but odds are good.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Also depends on what size the water is. You know, steam is bigger than ice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But it also weighs less.  Not to mention that it's spelled different.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which means it has different information, right?
Posted by: Ptaylor on Oct. 19 2010,23:11

I mentioned this over on the Corny Hunter thread, but I think < this comment > needs to be preserved here:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe G said...

   Derick:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe, I don't know what's worse: that you think you're intelligent,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



   My IQ is only 150.

   There are people with higher IQs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: didymos on Oct. 20 2010,04:18

Quote (Ptaylor @ Oct. 19 2010,21:11)
I mentioned this over on the Corny Hunter thread, but I think < this comment > needs to be preserved here:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe G said...

   Derick:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe, I don't know what's worse: that you think you're intelligent,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



   My IQ is only 150.

   There are people with higher IQs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe < gets a response > from Thorton:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

That's the funniest thing you've said in years JoeTard. Is that what you told them at the appliance repair store when they laid you off?

Let me guess. Not only do you have a 150 IQ, but you can bench press 400 lbs, run a mile in 3 minutes, and outfly all the fighter pilots at the Top Gun dogfighting school.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But that Joe, < he's all >, uh, modest, erm, dignity?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
300 lbs about 1.5 x my body weight- can't run blew out my knee in Iraq and I am only qualified to fly small twin engine aircrafts- Cessna, Piper.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ah, yes.  The "Iraq" incident. Very sad, that.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 20 2010,09:23

Meters WAY down, please:

< http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010....9186403 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Whatever oleg.

I know you can't support your position and can only attack people who disagree with you.

I find that hilarious...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 20 2010,10:49

Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 19 2010,17:15)
Which means it has different information, right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Insufficient data to answer that question.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 21 2010,10:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Joe G said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
October 20, 2010 7:14 AM

Thorton said...
Was gravity 'front-loaded' by your Magic Sky Pixie too, just to produce our solar system JoeTard?
October 20, 2010 7:20 AM

Joe G said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
October 20, 2010 7:25 AM

Thorton said...
Shouldn't you be out looking for a job Joe? Instead of venting your anger towards science and technology here?
October 20, 2010 7:32 AM

Joe G said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
October 20, 2010 7:46 AM

Joe G said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
October 20, 2010 8:18 AM

Joe G said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
October 20, 2010 3:04 PM
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/10/gtas-agents-of-change.html >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 21 2010,10:20

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 21 2010,10:17)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Joe G said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
October 20, 2010 7:14 AM

Thorton said...
Was gravity 'front-loaded' by your Magic Sky Pixie too, just to produce our solar system JoeTard?
October 20, 2010 7:20 AM

Joe G said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
October 20, 2010 7:25 AM

Thorton said...
Shouldn't you be out looking for a job Joe? Instead of venting your anger towards science and technology here?
October 20, 2010 7:32 AM

Joe G said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
October 20, 2010 7:46 AM

Joe G said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
October 20, 2010 8:18 AM

Joe G said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
October 20, 2010 3:04 PM
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/10/gtas-agents-of-change.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's that Darwinist establishment crushing descent again! Hey, Didn't I get banned from Telic Tards for mocking some rightwing talking-head?

ETA: oh, this is Corney's place, not TT. Never mind.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 21 2010,10:23

The plot thickens...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Ambiorix said...
Why was my post removed by a blog administrator?
October 20, 2010 5:34 PM

Joe G said...
Ambiorix,

It's our language the "e..t..." word.

Cornelius doesn't want us to stoop to their level.

My bad-
October 20, 2010 5:41 PM

Cornelius Hunter said...
Ambiorix:

Stay substantive and no foul language. Actually, I thought I was deleting one of Joe G's posts. I don't recall the reason for that particular deletion, but my patience is now used up regarding non substantive posts.
October 20, 2010 5:58 PM
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 21 2010,15:36

Joe:

< http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010....1735564 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Derick:
I just don't think a fully materialistic, blind force like gravity can account for it,"


LoL!!

Who sez that gravity is a totally materialistic blind force?

Do yo know the materialistic "explantion" for the laws of nature?-> "They just are (the way they are)" Hawking in "A Briefer History of Time"

That's a joke and very unscientific- yet that is all materiaists have.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 21 2010,16:39

Brave Sir Joe ran away from the Amazon thread where he claimed that he could use the EF to validate a design inference.





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"I say the ribosome is designed as determined by scientific inference:

The ribosome is a genetic compiler.

And again we have direct observations and experiences with intelligent agencies creating compilers and translation machines.

We don't have any evidence that blind, undirected chemical processes can do the same.

And that is how science operates- we infer based on our knowledge which comes from observations and experiences.

And yes we can use the EF to verify that inference.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://tinyurl.com/365enjj >

Luckily I reminded him on Corny's blog about his overdue demonstration.
Posted by: blipey on Oct. 22 2010,20:08

JoeG < at Corny's blog >.

Joe shows his real intellectual goals: little or no conversation on any topic.  That way, he won't be forced to remember and defend all the stupid things he says.  Unfortunately, it also belies the mindset of most IDiots--discussion, curiosity, and investigation are unimportant (unknown?).

JoeG:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have a feeling if you did you could wittle the blog down to a few comments per thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Zachriel on Oct. 24 2010,09:49

Joe G wins another argument.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Joe G >: All of that is what gets you the you are a stupid, fucked-up, child-molesting, son-of-a-bitch who is too retarded to feed himself from his mommy's teat award.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


His coulrophobia brings back fond memories of Dave S.
Posted by: keiths on Oct. 24 2010,14:34

Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 24 2010,07:49)
Joe G wins another argument.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Joe G >: All of that is what gets you the you are a stupid, fucked-up, child-molesting, son-of-a-bitch who is too retarded to feed himself from his mommy's teat award.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


His coulrophobia brings back fond memories of Dave S.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Watching < this video > kindled some sympathy in me for Joe G.  Maybe we should give him a stuffed animal to clutch while he's posting.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 24 2010,15:22

Such a sad little boy.

Joe even sucks at being an internet bully. He puffs up his chest, bangs away at his keyboard (the only banging he does, probably), and everyone just points and laughs.

Poor Joe.
Posted by: Zachriel on Oct. 27 2010,07:25

IDers have absolutely no imagination. Nor do they bother to try and verify even their simplest claims.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Joe G >: Have you even tried to make more than one sentence out of a given sentence just by shifting your starting point to the right or left?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Make more than one sentence!

Have you even tried?

Have you even tried to make more than one sentence?

One sentence.

Right or left?
Posted by: blipey on Oct. 27 2010,14:24

< Conversation in New Hampshire must be difficult. >

Joe doesn't recognize sentences such as, "Stop!".

"Joe, where do you live?"

"New Hampshire."

"I'm sorry, where?"

"New Hampshire."

"Something must be wrong; I see your lips moving, but I don't understand anything coming out of them. Where do you live?"

"New Hampshire!"

"Where?"

"What was that? Did you say something?"

"I said, 'Where?'"

"Oh, I see."

"Huh?"

"Did you say something?"

"Not a thing."

"Oh, virtual particles?"

"What?"
Posted by: SLP on Oct. 27 2010,18:25

Quote (didymos @ Oct. 20 2010,04:18)
[quote=Ptaylor,Oct. 19 2010,21:11]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
300 lbs about 1.5 x my body weight- can't run blew out my knee in Iraq and I am only qualified to fly small twin engine aircrafts- Cessna, Piper.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ah, yes.  The "Iraq" incident. Very sad, that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The one that was never mentioned in the press....

The one where he hurt his back....

But now it is his knee....
Posted by: SLP on Oct. 27 2010,18:27

Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 24 2010,15:22)
Such a sad little boy.

Joe even sucks at being an internet bully. He puffs up his chest, bangs away at his keyboard (the only banging he does, probably), and everyone just points and laughs.

Poor Joe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A 150 lb bully?   :O
Posted by: blipey on Oct. 27 2010,20:46

Quote (SLP @ Oct. 27 2010,18:27)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 24 2010,15:22)
Such a sad little boy.

Joe even sucks at being an internet bully. He puffs up his chest, bangs away at his keyboard (the only banging he does, probably), and everyone just points and laughs.

Poor Joe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A 150 lb bully?   :O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To be fair, he is claiming to be 200 lbs.  But unless he's also claiming to be 6' 3", he's probably overweight.
Posted by: Wolfhound on Oct. 28 2010,07:12

Quote (SLP @ Oct. 27 2010,19:27)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 24 2010,15:22)
Such a sad little boy.

Joe even sucks at being an internet bully. He puffs up his chest, bangs away at his keyboard (the only banging he does, probably), and everyone just points and laughs.

Poor Joe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A 150 lb bully?   :O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Damn, I'm 135 pounds and I bet *I* could whoop his ass.  Sadly, the first rule of Fight Club is that there is no Fight Club. :(
Posted by: Wolfhound on Oct. 28 2010,07:16

Quote (keiths @ Oct. 24 2010,15:34)
Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 24 2010,07:49)
Joe G wins another argument.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Joe G >: All of that is what gets you the you are a stupid, fucked-up, child-molesting, son-of-a-bitch who is too retarded to feed himself from his mommy's teat award.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


His coulrophobia brings back fond memories of Dave S.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Watching < this video > kindled some sympathy in me for Joe G.  Maybe we should give him a stuffed animal to clutch while he's posting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This might bring him comfort since it's what most of them cling to, anyway.  Perhaps we could all pitch in and...nah.



Posted by: Wolfhound on Oct. 28 2010,07:19

Screw it, let's give him nightmares.

Posted by: DNA_Jock on Oct. 28 2010,12:22

So naive me figured Joe's moderation policy must be pretty lenient, since he lets Zach and blipey beat the @#$% out of him.
But no, the following didn't make it through:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Joe G:
Yell "Stop!" in a room full of people and you may get some to stop what they  
are doing. But no one wil have any idea what you are trying to communicate,  
which is the purpose of a sentence.


Well the ones who stopped seemed to have a pretty good idea. How about:

"Duck!"


Joe G:
Try shifting ONE letter right or left and see what you get.

Or try two letters right or left.

Stop being such an obtuse jerk.


How about


"Top being such an obtuse jerk."


A difficult command to comply with, Joe, but you're a talented guy...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: DNA_Jock on Oct. 28 2010,12:24

Apologies to Joe, I spoke too soon re his moderation.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Oct. 29 2010,05:29

Quote (DNA_Jock @ Oct. 28 2010,12:24)
Apologies to Joe, I spoke too soon re his moderation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No surprise there. He is desperately pimping his blog everywhere he posts and probably figures that controversy must be better than no traffic at all.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Oct. 29 2010,06:17

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Oct. 29 2010,05:29)
Quote (DNA_Jock @ Oct. 28 2010,12:24)
Apologies to Joe, I spoke too soon re his moderation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No surprise there. He is desperately pimping his blog everywhere he posts and probably figures that controversy must be better than no traffic at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, he mentioned, on the Amazon comment thread discussed elsewhere here, that he had a post on his blog with further comments about me. I didn't click on it; I don't want him to get a single hit. He and Sal might be  the two biggest attention whores at UD (except for Densey, of course).
Posted by: Joe G on Oct. 29 2010,06:43

Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 24 2010,15:22)
Such a sad little boy.

Joe even sucks at being an internet bully. He puffs up his chest, bangs away at his keyboard (the only banging he does, probably), and everyone just points and laughs.

Poor Joe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lu-lu with the tu-tu you are so confused- I am standing up to internet bullies- you evotards.

And yes I expect you imbeciles to point and laugh- that is what you do...
Posted by: Joe G on Oct. 29 2010,06:44

Quote (SLP @ Oct. 27 2010,18:25)
[quote=didymos,Oct. 20 2010,04:18]
Quote (Ptaylor @ Oct. 19 2010,21:11)

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
300 lbs about 1.5 x my body weight- can't run blew out my knee in Iraq and I am only qualified to fly small twin engine aircrafts- Cessna, Piper.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ah, yes.  The "Iraq" incident. Very sad, that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The one that was never mentioned in the press....

The one where he hurt his back....

But now it is his knee....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How do you know it wasn't mentioned in the press?

I never said i hurt my back in Iraq.

IOW Scotty once again you prove that you are an ass.
Posted by: Joe G on Oct. 29 2010,06:46

Quote (SLP @ Oct. 27 2010,18:27)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 24 2010,15:22)
Such a sad little boy.

Joe even sucks at being an internet bully. He puffs up his chest, bangs away at his keyboard (the only banging he does, probably), and everyone just points and laughs.

Poor Joe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A 150 lb bully?   :O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


210 lbs- and I am standing up tp bullies.

That's right Scotty I am smaller than you and will still stand up to you.

Do you remember you and rapier were going to come to my work?

What ever happened with that?
Posted by: Joe G on Oct. 29 2010,06:49

Quote (blipey @ Oct. 27 2010,20:46)
Quote (SLP @ Oct. 27 2010,18:27)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 24 2010,15:22)
Such a sad little boy.

Joe even sucks at being an internet bully. He puffs up his chest, bangs away at his keyboard (the only banging he does, probably), and everyone just points and laughs.

Poor Joe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A 150 lb bully?   :O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To be fair, he is claiming to be 200 lbs.  But unless he's also claiming to be 6' 3", he's probably overweight.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yup just under 6' 1"- overweight? at 210 lbs?

Well Mikey Jordan- when he was playing- had a BMI that said he was obese.

So it all depends on what you mean by "overweight".
Posted by: Joe G on Oct. 29 2010,06:50

Quote (Wolfhound @ Oct. 28 2010,07:12)
Quote (SLP @ Oct. 27 2010,19:27)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 24 2010,15:22)
Such a sad little boy.

Joe even sucks at being an internet bully. He puffs up his chest, bangs away at his keyboard (the only banging he does, probably), and everyone just points and laughs.

Poor Joe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A 150 lb bully?   :O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Damn, I'm 135 pounds and I bet *I* could whoop his ass.  Sadly, the first rule of Fight Club is that there is no Fight Club. :(
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bring it on flyboy...
Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 29 2010,06:51

Quote (Joe G @ Oct. 29 2010,06:49)
Yup just under 6' 1"- overweight? at 210 lbs?

Well Mikey Jordan- when he was playing- had a BMI that said he was obese.

So it all depends on what you mean by "overweight".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 29 2010,08:55

Quote (Joe G @ Oct. 29 2010,06:50)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Oct. 28 2010,07:12)
Quote (SLP @ Oct. 27 2010,19:27)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 24 2010,15:22)
Such a sad little boy.

Joe even sucks at being an internet bully. He puffs up his chest, bangs away at his keyboard (the only banging he does, probably), and everyone just points and laughs.

Poor Joe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A 150 lb bully?   :O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Damn, I'm 135 pounds and I bet *I* could whoop his ass.  Sadly, the first rule of Fight Club is that there is no Fight Club. :(
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bring it on flyboy...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe, aren't you old and crippled? Best to stick to just *one* story. You can always pretend that was ID guy, I suppose.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Oct. 29 2010,09:29

Quote (Joe G @ Oct. 29 2010,06:46)
Do you remember you and rapier were going to come to my work?

What ever happened with that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't worry, they'll come when they need you to repair their toaster.
Posted by: blipey on Oct. 29 2010,10:12

Quote (Joe G @ Oct. 29 2010,06:49)
Quote (blipey @ Oct. 27 2010,20:46)
Quote (SLP @ Oct. 27 2010,18:27)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 24 2010,15:22)
Such a sad little boy.

Joe even sucks at being an internet bully. He puffs up his chest, bangs away at his keyboard (the only banging he does, probably), and everyone just points and laughs.

Poor Joe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A 150 lb bully?   :O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To be fair, he is claiming to be 200 lbs.  But unless he's also claiming to be 6' 3", he's probably overweight.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yup just under 6' 1"- overweight? at 210 lbs?

Well Mikey Jordan- when he was playing- had a BMI that said he was obese.

So it all depends on what you mean by "overweight".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Since you're on a goofy-nickname basis with him, perhaps you can ask him what his body fat percentage was?  Most professional athletes will have an abnormally high BMI, you should follow your own advice here--use some context.
Posted by: blipey on Oct. 29 2010,10:17

Also, can we now add professional basketball player to your resume, Joe.  Name dropping ol' Jords, whom you have something in common with: a pretty high BMI, almost in the obese range.  You probably aren't working out so much though with the injuries and all, so the body fat percentage is probably higher than ole Mic.

Conclusion: you're obese.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 29 2010,10:32

Poor Joe. On top of being a complete failure as an internet bully, it turns out his BMI is twice his IQ.

Hopefully his mommy will bring him cookies down to the basement, so he won't have to lug his ass up the stairs.
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 29 2010,11:55

Quote (Joe G @ Oct. 29 2010,04:43)
And yes I expect you imbeciles to point and laugh- that is what you do...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And they said it would never happen...

Finally, a confirmed ID hypothesis.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 29 2010,13:05

Here's one for Joe:

< http://scienceblogs.com/startsw...._un.php >
Posted by: blipey on Oct. 29 2010,13:50

Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 29 2010,13:05)
Here's one for Joe:

< http://scienceblogs.com/startsw...._un.php >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oooh!!!  That's exciting; it's about size-yness, one of Joe's stronger areas!
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 29 2010,14:50

Quote (blipey @ Oct. 29 2010,13:50)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 29 2010,13:05)
Here's one for Joe:

< http://scienceblogs.com/startsw...._un.php >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oooh!!!  That's exciting; it's about size-yness, one of Joe's stronger areas!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sure, but at that scale, we are all damn puny.

Awesome article btw!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 29 2010,16:16

he's having a mini-meltdown on his blog right now.
Posted by: Wolfhound on Oct. 29 2010,18:15

Quote (Joe G @ Oct. 29 2010,07:50)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Oct. 28 2010,07:12)
Quote (SLP @ Oct. 27 2010,19:27)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 24 2010,15:22)
Such a sad little boy.

Joe even sucks at being an internet bully. He puffs up his chest, bangs away at his keyboard (the only banging he does, probably), and everyone just points and laughs.

Poor Joe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A 150 lb bully?   :O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Damn, I'm 135 pounds and I bet *I* could whoop his ass.  Sadly, the first rule of Fight Club is that there is no Fight Club. :(
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bring it on flyboy...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, that's flygirl, but okay.  I'm 5'10" and 135 pounds of lean, athletic muscle, plus I'm a size 34C lest you think you're dealing with a mere twig.  Former epee fencer and collegiate rugby player and I work out at least four days a week.  AND I'm good-looking.

So, that's my CV.  Let's go, doughbullyboy.
Posted by: J-Dog on Oct. 30 2010,16:30

Quote (Wolfhound @ Oct. 29 2010,18:15)
Quote (Joe G @ Oct. 29 2010,07:50)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Oct. 28 2010,07:12)
 
Quote (SLP @ Oct. 27 2010,19:27)
   
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 24 2010,15:22)
Such a sad little boy.

Joe even sucks at being an internet bully. He puffs up his chest, bangs away at his keyboard (the only banging he does, probably), and everyone just points and laughs.

Poor Joe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A 150 lb bully?   :O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Damn, I'm 135 pounds and I bet *I* could whoop his ass.  Sadly, the first rule of Fight Club is that there is no Fight Club. :(
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bring it on flyboy...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, that's flygirl, but okay.  I'm 5'10" and 135 pounds of lean, athletic muscle, plus I'm a size 34C lest you think you're dealing with a mere twig.  Former epee fencer and collegiate rugby player and I work out at least four days a week.  AND I'm good-looking.

So, that's my CV.  Let's go, doughbullyboy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm putting $20 on Wolfie... I pick a smart Amazon over a livin' in Mom's basement repairman everytime.
Posted by: rhmc on Oct. 30 2010,21:08

send me the $20 and i'll let her kick my ass.  :)
Posted by: Wolfhound on Oct. 31 2010,14:32

Quote (rhmc @ Oct. 30 2010,22:08)
send me the $20 and i'll let her kick my ass.  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll even supply my own, erm, accoutrements.  Some are even fluffy!   :)
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 01 2010,09:43

I think I'd pay $20 just to make that happen...
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 01 2010,11:36

Quote (Wolfhound @ Oct. 31 2010,12:32)
Quote (rhmc @ Oct. 30 2010,22:08)
send me the $20 and i'll let her kick my ass.  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll even supply my own, erm, accoutrements.  Some are even fluffy!   :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I love you, Wolfie.

There, I said it.
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 02 2010,10:11

I've got a handle on Joe's word counting theory.  < It's easy. >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is a crappy organization."

Joe says this sentence has 10 words.  This is incorrect.  The sentence has at least 17,060 words in it.

Obviously, any asshat knows that the number of people working directly or indirectly for NASA last year was slightly over 17,000.  Each one of these people is an understood subject in the above sentence.

Of course, we could take the position that we need to use their full names and the sentence then becomes well over 50,000 words long.

This, however, does not take into account the implicit role of the US government in the administration and funding of NASA, so the sentence is surely over 1,000,000 words long.

All of this is child's play and generally well accepted English grammatical construction.  There is, however, one small area of contention for which grammarians have yet to come to a formal conclusion.

Namely, Joe has decided to add the definite article "The" to the front of the sentence.  Some think that this should be included in that all nouns are properly identified with a definite article.  Others, however, maintain that in these modern times nobody is still addressed as The Mr. Zachriel or The Blipey, so the definite article may be dropped in this case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: didymos on Nov. 02 2010,12:27

I especially like the bit where he gets all pissed and says "NASA" isn't a word.  Even though it gets used as one in countless sentences both written and spoken and is treated just like any other noun by the brain.  I'm pretty sure there's some aphorism involving water-fowl that covers this situation.
Posted by: rhmc on Nov. 02 2010,17:46

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 01 2010,10:43)
I think I'd pay $20 just to make that happen...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


perfect.  so where do i meet her?  

and i guess you'll need to send me the twenny.
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 03 2010,04:42

Quote (Joe G @ Oct. 29 2010,12:46)
[SNIP]

210 lbs- and I am standing up tp bullies.

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


{Spits coffee everywhere}

BWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

{deep breath}

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA  BWAHAHA BWAAAAHAHAHAHA HA AHHHH HA

Yeah Joe, you're a real hero. Standing up to those mean scientists and all. The possibility that you are simply too biased, uneducated and simply fucking stupid to properly consider any scientific subject, let alone this one, must never occur to you.

Oh wait, psychology 101, of course it's occurred to you. That's why you're dancing about like a little neutered yappy dog trying to fight a lion. Your behaviour couldn't be any more transparent...or funnier...if you tried.

Anyway, enough. I have better things to do than bandy words with insignificant internet maggots. Wake me when you say something interesting, tough guy. Sure is easy to be tough behind that keyboard isn't it, Joey? Go on tough guy, bluster some more.

Yap yap yap.

Louis
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 03 2010,09:57

Joe has given up trying to defend his "number of words in a sentence" idiocy.  Of course, he's done this by declaring victory and refusing to publish further comments.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How many words are in the sentence "The red brick fudges the upstairs house."?

This is important to supporting your argument that sentences have an indeterminate amount of words.

It is also important to supporting your argument that sentences have a determinate amount of words.

Please give either a simple integer answer or a silly evasion--both are acceptable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



edited to correct "words" to "sentences"... duh
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 03 2010,11:18

Joe introduces a concept he thinks is fantastic and defends it by refusing to post comments that criticize it.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Perhaps you could provide an example of your premise:

Joe: "Nothing in there that says either dude used observations and experiences- <b>just observing a rock is not what I am talking about.</b>"

Perhaps you have specific details showing what you are talking about?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: olegt on Nov. 03 2010,14:31

Joe < means business >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
OM if you have a point then make it. I am not here to chit-chat with you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, what is he up to? Enquiring minds want to know.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 03 2010,14:37

He's having a mini-meltdown right now. Awwwwwww.
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 03 2010,15:02

Quote (blipey @ Nov. 03 2010,11:18)
Joe introduces a concept he thinks is fantastic and defends it by refusing to post comments that criticize it.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Perhaps you could provide an example of your premise:

Joe: "Nothing in there that says either dude used observations and experiences- <b>just observing a rock is not what I am talking about.</b>"

Perhaps you have specific details showing what you are talking about?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I find it odd that Joe doesn't have a career researching and publishing his "fantastic concepts", what with his brilliant reasoning, solid favorable calculations, and endless references to supporting hypotheses.


:p
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 03 2010,15:12

Quote (olegt @ Nov. 03 2010,14:31)
Joe < means business >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
OM if you have a point then make it. I am not here to chit-chat with you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, what is he up to? Enquiring minds want to know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, all he has to do is stop posting my comments = chit chat over.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Nov. 03 2010,15:32

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 03 2010,15:12)
Quote (olegt @ Nov. 03 2010,14:31)
Joe < means business >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
OM if you have a point then make it. I am not here to chit-chat with you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, what is he up to? Enquiring minds want to know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, all he has to do is stop posting my comments = chit chat over.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interesting that he abandoned his "ribosomes are dezined, according to the Nixplanatory Filter!!!!!!!!!!!" line on the Amazon thread, but thinks that somehow it will go better on his own little outpost of the intertubes.

I'm really glad that I don't understand the "thinking" that underlies tarditude at Joe's unique level...
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 03 2010,15:49

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 03 2010,15:32)
I'm really glad that I don't it isn't remotely possible for a person who is smarter than a box of hammers  to understand the "thinking" that underlies tarditude at Joe's unique level...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There, fixed that for you.
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 03 2010,16:52

OM:
So that indicates that the universe and the laws of physics are not designed.  How could they be designed and pulsars not?

JoeG:  Very easily I would presume.  Cars are designed does that mean there aren't any accidents?

probably not going to be published by Joe:

blipey:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So let me get this straight:

"Cars are designed but accidents happen."

This is your analogy to explain pulsars being not designed and the universe being designed.

For this analogy to be valid, cars would have to be designed and part of a car--say the cruise control--would have to be not designed.

Is that what you're saying?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Zachriel on Nov. 04 2010,09:21

Joe G bans the best friend he ever had.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Why has blipey been banned? >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 04 2010,09:37

Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 04 2010,09:21)
Joe G bans the best only friend he ever had.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Why has blipey been banned? >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FIFY
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 04 2010,10:32

I especially like < this post. >

He lets everyone know he allows "evolutionitwits" to comment because he's nice, it helps his cause, blah, blah, blah....

He lets us post because we're the only people who occasionally care to comment at his sorry pile of idiocy.

Commenters at Joe's Super-Secret World HQ for ID Stuff:

Why Has Blipey been Banned: Rich, Zachriel, Thorton

The Ribozome and the EF: Rich, Thorton, OM (in an amazing display of reasoned restraint), Blipey

Actual Investigative Disciplines vs. the EF: Thorton, OM, Rich, Blipey

You get the idea.  You have to go back to October 15thbefore anyone other than those above cared to comment at Joe's and that was a drive-by from no other than FTK!

On the 11th of October, some guy name love1scent dropped by to pimp a book about how scientists at the genome project admit that there is design in the universe.  Even Joe ignored him.

Hawks showed up for one comment on October 4th.

In one month, there are only 4 comments from people other than Zachriel, Rich, blipey, and OM.  Come on, Joe; you let us comment because we're the only people that care about you.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Nov. 04 2010,10:55

Good grief!  Joe "Ice is Not Water" G is arguing that "one word sentences," like "Go!" are not sentences.

Is there a pathological mental condition, besides creationist fuckwit, that a person can never, ever be wrong?

Something like "FL Syndrome."

How does a person like this get through the day?  Inquiring minds want to know!
Posted by: didymos on Nov. 04 2010,11:24

Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 04 2010,08:55)
Is there a pathological mental condition, besides creationist fuckwit, that a person can never, ever be wrong?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a common feature of < Narcissistic personality disorder >.  Joe exhibits some of the other signs as well.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Nov. 04 2010,11:59



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In order for a person to be diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) they must meet five or more of the following symptoms:

Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements).

Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.

Believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions).

Rarely acknowledges mistakes and/or imperfections.

Requires excessive admiration.

Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations.

Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends.

Lacks empathy: is unwilling or unable to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others.

Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her.

Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitude.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



(copied from Wikipedia, link above)

Not changing the subject too much, but which of these symptoms does Dembski NOT display?

I am not a doctor, although I play one in my house, but Total Lack of Humor ought to be in the list!
Posted by: Texas Teach on Nov. 04 2010,17:22

Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 04 2010,10:55)
Good grief!  Joe "Ice is Not Water" G is arguing that "one word sentences," like "Go!" are not sentences.

Is there a pathological mental condition, besides creationist fuckwit, that a person can never, ever be wrong?

Something like "FL Syndrome."

How does a person like this get through the day?  Inquiring minds want to know!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean like refusing to concede that Portuguese is not a mixture of Spanish and French?
Posted by: Doc Bill on Nov. 04 2010,18:28

Tloch, everybody knows Portuguese is a mixture of port and geese!
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 04 2010,19:26

Quote (Wolfhound @ Oct. 29 2010,18:15)
Quote (Joe G @ Oct. 29 2010,07:50)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Oct. 28 2010,07:12)
 
Quote (SLP @ Oct. 27 2010,19:27)
   
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 24 2010,15:22)
Such a sad little boy.

Joe even sucks at being an internet bully. He puffs up his chest, bangs away at his keyboard (the only banging he does, probably), and everyone just points and laughs.

Poor Joe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A 150 lb bully?   :O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Damn, I'm 135 pounds and I bet *I* could whoop his ass.  Sadly, the first rule of Fight Club is that there is no Fight Club. :(
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bring it on flyboy...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, that's flygirl, but okay.  I'm 5'10" and 135 pounds of lean, athletic muscle, plus I'm a size 34C lest you think you're dealing with a mere twig.  Former epee fencer and collegiate rugby player and I work out at least four days a week.  AND I'm good-looking.

So, that's my CV.  Let's go, doughbullyboy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Flygirl? Well that would explain the hysterics and dimentia- you can't understand normal thinking.
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 04 2010,19:29

Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 04 2010,10:55)
Good grief!  Joe "Ice is Not Water" G is arguing that "one word sentences," like "Go!" are not sentences.

Is there a pathological mental condition, besides creationist fuckwit, that a person can never, ever be wrong?

Something like "FL Syndrome."

How does a person like this get through the day?  Inquiring minds want to know!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Doc, one-word sentences have understood/ invisible words that go with them.

That is what all the references and grammar professionals say anyway.

And ice is FROZEN water. IOW there is a difference...
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 04 2010,19:30

Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 29 2010,10:32)
Poor Joe. On top of being a complete failure as an internet bully, it turns out his BMI is twice his IQ.

Hopefully his mommy will bring him cookies down to the basement, so he won't have to lug his ass up the stairs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lu-lu you got poo-poo in your tu-tu.

And yes your momma brings me her cookies every night...
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 04 2010,19:31

Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 29 2010,08:55)
Quote (Joe G @ Oct. 29 2010,06:50)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Oct. 28 2010,07:12)
 
Quote (SLP @ Oct. 27 2010,19:27)
   
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 24 2010,15:22)
Such a sad little boy.

Joe even sucks at being an internet bully. He puffs up his chest, bangs away at his keyboard (the only banging he does, probably), and everyone just points and laughs.

Poor Joe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A 150 lb bully?   :O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Damn, I'm 135 pounds and I bet *I* could whoop his ass.  Sadly, the first rule of Fight Club is that there is no Fight Club. :(
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bring it on flyboy...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe, aren't you old and crippled? Best to stick to just *one* story. You can always pretend that was ID guy, I suppose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No Rich I never said I was crippled and old is relative.

IOW thanks for continuing to prove how clueless you really are...
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 04 2010,19:35

Quote (blipey @ Oct. 29 2010,10:17)
Also, can we now add professional basketball player to your resume, Joe.  Name dropping ol' Jords, whom you have something in common with: a pretty high BMI, almost in the obese range.  You probably aren't working out so much though with the injuries and all, so the body fat percentage is probably higher than ole Mic.

Conclusion: you're obese.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually I work out quite a bit- physical therapy and all.

Also there is the local nautatorium- 3 miles a week.

I bet my BF < 15% but definitely not the 10% it was in 2004.

I guess there IS a reason I look like I weigh only 180...
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 04 2010,19:37

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 03 2010,04:42)
Quote (Joe G @ Oct. 29 2010,12:46)
[SNIP]

210 lbs- and I am standing up tp bullies.

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


{Spits coffee everywhere}

BWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

{deep breath}

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA  BWAHAHA BWAAAAHAHAHAHA HA AHHHH HA

Yeah Joe, you're a real hero. Standing up to those mean scientists and all. The possibility that you are simply too biased, uneducated and simply fucking stupid to properly consider any scientific subject, let alone this one, must never occur to you.

Oh wait, psychology 101, of course it's occurred to you. That's why you're dancing about like a little neutered yappy dog trying to fight a lion. Your behaviour couldn't be any more transparent...or funnier...if you tried.

Anyway, enough. I have better things to do than bandy words with insignificant internet maggots. Wake me when you say something interesting, tough guy. Sure is easy to be tough behind that keyboard isn't it, Joey? Go on tough guy, bluster some more.

Yap yap yap.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nice evotardgasm bitch.

Is ignorant spewage all you have?
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 04 2010,19:38

Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 04 2010,09:21)
Joe G bans the best friend he ever had.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Why has blipey been banned? >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


With "friends" like blipey who needs Hitler, Stalin and Mao?
Posted by: olegt on Nov. 04 2010,19:41

Hey Joe,

How come your buddy Jim never comments on your blog? And what's the reason you never show up at TT?

Enquiring minds want to know.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Nov. 04 2010,19:46

Aaaww cute ... Joe is already beginning to miss blibey and has come over to make peace in his very own inimitable way.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 04 2010,19:54

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 04 2010,19:29)
   
Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 04 2010,10:55)
Good grief!  Joe "Ice is Not Water" G is arguing that "one word sentences," like "Go!" are not sentences.  

Is there a pathological mental condition, besides creationist fuckwit, that a person can never, ever be wrong?

Something like "FL Syndrome."

How does a person like this get through the day?  Inquiring minds want to know!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Doc, one-word sentences have understood/ invisible words that go with them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



...which doesn't alter one bit the fact that it's still a sentence composed of one word.  That's why they're called one-word sentences.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And ice is FROZEN water. IOW there is a difference...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



...which doesn't alter one bit the fact that it's still water.

Tell us how you determined your IQ was 150 Joe.  Show us the results.  Was it one of those online self-evaluations that will give you any score you ask for if you pay them $8.99?
Posted by: Doc Bill on Nov. 04 2010,19:57

Joe G -

Seriously, dude, there's a difference between ice and water?

You are a moron.

Let me put it another way.  I have a PhD in chemistry which is really, really hard and I am smart.  You are an uncredentialed moron which is really, really easy and you are stupid.

IOW, there's a difference.

But, hey, Joe G, in terms of being a stupid moron you're Number One!  You're Number One!  So, I guess, you win!
Posted by: Wolfhound on Nov. 04 2010,20:38

Quote (rhmc @ Nov. 02 2010,18:46)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 01 2010,10:43)
I think I'd pay $20 just to make that happen...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


perfect.  so where do i meet her?  

and i guess you'll need to send me the twenny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Orlando.  Disney World.  Behind Cinderella's Castle.  I'll bring the ostrich plumes and greasepaint.
Posted by: Wolfhound on Nov. 04 2010,20:45

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 04 2010,20:26)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Oct. 29 2010,18:15)
Quote (Joe G @ Oct. 29 2010,07:50)
 
Quote (Wolfhound @ Oct. 28 2010,07:12)
 
Quote (SLP @ Oct. 27 2010,19:27)
   
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 24 2010,15:22)
Such a sad little boy.

Joe even sucks at being an internet bully. He puffs up his chest, bangs away at his keyboard (the only banging he does, probably), and everyone just points and laughs.

Poor Joe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A 150 lb bully?   :O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Damn, I'm 135 pounds and I bet *I* could whoop his ass.  Sadly, the first rule of Fight Club is that there is no Fight Club. :(
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bring it on flyboy...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, that's flygirl, but okay.  I'm 5'10" and 135 pounds of lean, athletic muscle, plus I'm a size 34C lest you think you're dealing with a mere twig.  Former epee fencer and collegiate rugby player and I work out at least four days a week.  AND I'm good-looking.

So, that's my CV.  Let's go, doughbullyboy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Flygirl? Well that would explain the hysterics and dimentia- you can't understand normal thinking.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gosh, who knew?  He's a creationist retard AND a sexist.  Oh, wait, most good Christian men ARE sexist since the Sky Daddy tells them it's A-OK.

BTW, what's "dimentia"?  A condition involving ten cent pieces?

P.S.-- Your "comebacks" pretty clearly indicate your stunted mental and emotional state.  You should get out more.  No, wait, your mom's basement is safer.  For the rest of the population.  Carry on.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 04 2010,21:16

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 04 2010,20:29)
And ice is FROZEN water. IOW there is a difference...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe has a point. There is a difference between water and frozen water.

Just like there is a difference between water and liquid water.

Right, Joe?
Posted by: olegt on Nov. 04 2010,21:23

I have a competing theory. Water is MELTED ice.

Joe, bring your buddy ID guy to argue. That will double your brain power. (Inside joke.)
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 04 2010,21:29

Hey Joe, just out of curiosity, what do you think "Steam" is?
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 05 2010,01:23

Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 04 2010,18:45)
BTW, what's "dimentia"?  A condition involving ten cent pieces?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, "dimentia" is when you're of two minds about something.

I'm guessing GI Joe hasn't had much luck with women since... oh, maybe 10th grade.  

It takes more to impress grown-ups than "I can bench-press your house", doesn't it, Joe.
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 05 2010,04:56

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 05 2010,01:37)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 03 2010,04:42)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Oct. 29 2010,12:46)
[SNIP]

210 lbs- and I am standing up tp bullies.

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


{Spits coffee everywhere}

BWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

{deep breath}

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA  BWAHAHA BWAAAAHAHAHAHA HA AHHHH HA

Yeah Joe, you're a real hero. Standing up to those mean scientists and all. The possibility that you are simply too biased, uneducated and simply fucking stupid to properly consider any scientific subject, let alone this one, must never occur to you.

Oh wait, psychology 101, of course it's occurred to you. That's why you're dancing about like a little neutered yappy dog trying to fight a lion. Your behaviour couldn't be any more transparent...or funnier...if you tried.

Anyway, enough. I have better things to do than bandy words with insignificant internet maggots. Wake me when you say something interesting, tough guy. Sure is easy to be tough behind that keyboard isn't it, Joey? Go on tough guy, bluster some more.

Yap yap yap.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nice evotardgasm bitch.

Is ignorant spewage all you have?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's nice, dear. Well done. You typed all that yourself too I bet. Good moron, here's a biscuit.

Joey, you are too easy to manipulate. It's almost cruel. Carry on trolling you ignorant fuckknuckle.

Louis

ETA: I'm also loving the sexism, Joey. Classy. Bet you're a real hit with the ladies. As well as being super fit and clever and everything you claim about yourself. Gosh, aren't you just special? Yap on doggy.
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 05 2010,06:39

Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 04 2010,19:57)
Joe G -

Seriously, dude, there's a difference between ice and water?

You are a moron.

Let me put it another way.  I have a PhD in chemistry which is really, really hard and I am smart.  You are an uncredentialed moron which is really, really easy and you are stupid.

IOW, there's a difference.

But, hey, Joe G, in terms of being a stupid moron you're Number One!  You're Number One!  So, I guess, you win!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


f course there is a difference you imbecile. If you order a glass of water do you want a glass of ice?

If yu ordered a coke with ice do you want them to pour water into your coke?

I bet you think you are ordering a coke with boiling water.

If there isn't ay difference why do we have two different words? Because there is a difference and it is spelled out in the definitions.
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 05 2010,06:42

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 04 2010,19:54)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 04 2010,19:29)
     
Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 04 2010,10:55)
Good grief!  Joe "Ice is Not Water" G is arguing that "one word sentences," like "Go!" are not sentences.  

Is there a pathological mental condition, besides creationist fuckwit, that a person can never, ever be wrong?

Something like "FL Syndrome."

How does a person like this get through the day?  Inquiring minds want to know!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Doc, one-word sentences have understood/ invisible words that go with them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



...which doesn't alter one bit the fact that it's still a sentence composed of one word.  That's why they're called one-word sentences.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And ice is FROZEN water. IOW there is a difference...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



...which doesn't alter one bit the fact that it's still water.

Tell us how you determined your IQ was 150 Joe.  Show us the results.  Was it one of those online self-evaluations that will give you any score you ask for if you pay them $8.99?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wrong again occam's afterbirth- the assumed words are still there- meaning the one-wrod sentences are not one-word.

And yes I have said that ice is made from water but there is a difference between the two- the difference is spelled out in each definition.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Nov. 05 2010,06:44

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 05 2010,06:39)
 
Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 04 2010,19:57)
Joe G -

Seriously, dude, there's a difference between ice and water?

You are a moron.

Let me put it another way.  I have a PhD in chemistry which is really, really hard and I am smart.  You are an uncredentialed moron which is really, really easy and you are stupid.

IOW, there's a difference.

But, hey, Joe G, in terms of being a stupid moron you're Number One!  You're Number One!  So, I guess, you win!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


f course there is a difference you imbecile. If you order a glass of water do you want a glass of ice?

If yu ordered a coke with ice do you want them to pour water into your coke?

I bet you think you are ordering a coke with boiling water.

If there isn't ay difference why do we have two different words? Because there is a difference and it is spelled out in the definitions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 05 2010,06:44

Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 04 2010,20:45)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 04 2010,20:26)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Oct. 29 2010,18:15)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Oct. 29 2010,07:50)
 
Quote (Wolfhound @ Oct. 28 2010,07:12)
   
Quote (SLP @ Oct. 27 2010,19:27)
     
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 24 2010,15:22)
Such a sad little boy.

Joe even sucks at being an internet bully. He puffs up his chest, bangs away at his keyboard (the only banging he does, probably), and everyone just points and laughs.

Poor Joe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A 150 lb bully?   :O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Damn, I'm 135 pounds and I bet *I* could whoop his ass.  Sadly, the first rule of Fight Club is that there is no Fight Club. :(
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bring it on flyboy...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, that's flygirl, but okay.  I'm 5'10" and 135 pounds of lean, athletic muscle, plus I'm a size 34C lest you think you're dealing with a mere twig.  Former epee fencer and collegiate rugby player and I work out at least four days a week.  AND I'm good-looking.

So, that's my CV.  Let's go, doughbullyboy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Flygirl? Well that would explain the hysterics and dimentia- you can't understand normal thinking.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gosh, who knew?  He's a creationist retard AND a sexist.  Oh, wait, most good Christian men ARE sexist since the Sky Daddy tells them it's A-OK.

BTW, what's "dimentia"?  A condition involving ten cent pieces?

P.S.-- Your "comebacks" pretty clearly indicate your stunted mental and emotional state.  You should get out more.  No, wait, your mom's basement is safer.  For the rest of the population.  Carry on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not a christian you skinny freak and my mother has been dead since 1984.

However your mother likes to come to my basement...
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 05 2010,06:45

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 05 2010,04:56)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 05 2010,01:37)
 
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 03 2010,04:42)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Oct. 29 2010,12:46)
[SNIP]

210 lbs- and I am standing up tp bullies.

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


{Spits coffee everywhere}

BWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

{deep breath}

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA  BWAHAHA BWAAAAHAHAHAHA HA AHHHH HA

Yeah Joe, you're a real hero. Standing up to those mean scientists and all. The possibility that you are simply too biased, uneducated and simply fucking stupid to properly consider any scientific subject, let alone this one, must never occur to you.

Oh wait, psychology 101, of course it's occurred to you. That's why you're dancing about like a little neutered yappy dog trying to fight a lion. Your behaviour couldn't be any more transparent...or funnier...if you tried.

Anyway, enough. I have better things to do than bandy words with insignificant internet maggots. Wake me when you say something interesting, tough guy. Sure is easy to be tough behind that keyboard isn't it, Joey? Go on tough guy, bluster some more.

Yap yap yap.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nice evotardgasm bitch.

Is ignorant spewage all you have?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's nice, dear. Well done. You typed all that yourself too I bet. Good moron, here's a biscuit.

Joey, you are too easy to manipulate. It's almost cruel. Carry on trolling you ignorant fuckknuckle.

Louis

ETA: I'm also loving the sexism, Joey. Classy. Bet you're a real hit with the ladies. As well as being super fit and clever and everything you claim about yourself. Gosh, aren't you just special? Yap on doggy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


wolfie ain't no lady andy are an ignorant punk.
Posted by: didymos on Nov. 05 2010,06:47

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 05 2010,04:39)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 04 2010,19:57)
Joe G -

Seriously, dude, there's a difference between ice and water?

You are a moron.

Let me put it another way.  I have a PhD in chemistry which is really, really hard and I am smart.  You are an uncredentialed moron which is really, really easy and you are stupid.

IOW, there's a difference.

But, hey, Joe G, in terms of being a stupid moron you're Number One!  You're Number One!  So, I guess, you win!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


f course there is a difference you imbecile. If you order a glass of water do you want a glass of ice?

If yu ordered a coke with ice do you want them to pour water into your coke?

I bet you think you are ordering a coke with boiling water.

If there isn't ay difference why do we have two different words? Because there is a difference and it is spelled out in the definitions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey Joe:  what's ice made of?
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 05 2010,06:48

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2010,21:29)
Hey Joe, just out of curiosity, what do you think "Steam" is?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I bet if I hit you with a water balloon and an ice-filled balloon yu morons would understand the difference.

And I bet if I forced your hand into a tub of warm water and then into the path of some steam you would know the difference between those two also.

Steam is steam- made from water, yes
Posted by: didymos on Nov. 05 2010,06:48

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 05 2010,04:42)
Wrong again occam's afterbirth- the assumed words are still there- meaning the one-wrod sentences are not one-word.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where is "there", Joe?
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 05 2010,06:49

Quote (didymos @ Nov. 05 2010,06:47)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 05 2010,04:39)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 04 2010,19:57)
Joe G -

Seriously, dude, there's a difference between ice and water?

You are a moron.

Let me put it another way.  I have a PhD in chemistry which is really, really hard and I am smart.  You are an uncredentialed moron which is really, really easy and you are stupid.

IOW, there's a difference.

But, hey, Joe G, in terms of being a stupid moron you're Number One!  You're Number One!  So, I guess, you win!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


f course there is a difference you imbecile. If you order a glass of water do you want a glass of ice?

If yu ordered a coke with ice do you want them to pour water into your coke?

I bet you think you are ordering a coke with boiling water.

If there isn't ay difference why do we have two different words? Because there is a difference and it is spelled out in the definitions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey Joe:  what's ice made of?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Water, just as I have said all along.
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 05 2010,06:49

Quote (didymos @ Nov. 05 2010,06:48)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 05 2010,04:42)
Wrong again occam's afterbirth- the assumed words are still there- meaning the one-wrod sentences are not one-word.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where is "there", Joe?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wherever the people have the conversation are you moron.

Are you that stupid that you don't understand understood words?
Posted by: didymos on Nov. 05 2010,06:56

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 05 2010,04:49)
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 05 2010,06:48)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 05 2010,04:42)
Wrong again occam's afterbirth- the assumed words are still there- meaning the one-wrod sentences are not one-word.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where is "there", Joe?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wherever the people have the conversation are you moron.

Are you that stupid that you don't understand understood words?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So the unspoken, invisible words are, what, like floating in the air or something?  C'mon, be specific, Joe.
Posted by: didymos on Nov. 05 2010,06:59

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 05 2010,04:49)
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 05 2010,06:47)

Hey Joe:  what's ice made of?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Water, just as I have said all along.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, so what is hail made of?
Posted by: carlsonjok on Nov. 05 2010,07:01

Quote (didymos @ Nov. 05 2010,06:56)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 05 2010,04:49)
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 05 2010,06:48)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 05 2010,04:42)
Wrong again occam's afterbirth- the assumed words are still there- meaning the one-wrod sentences are not one-word.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where is "there", Joe?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wherever the people have the conversation are you moron.

Are you that stupid that you don't understand understood words?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So the unspoken, invisible words are, what, like floating in the air or something?  C'mon, be specific, Joe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think they are hanging out with all the dFCSI.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 05 2010,07:14

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 05 2010,06:48)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2010,21:29)
Hey Joe, just out of curiosity, what do you think "Steam" is?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I bet if I hit you with a water balloon and an ice-filled balloon yu morons would understand the difference.

And I bet if I forced your hand into a tub of warm water and then into the path of some steam you would know the difference between those two also.

Steam is steam- made from water, yes
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, I was being facetious.  

So, just out of curiosity, what is the difference between the molecules of water, ice, and steam?

BTW: You really don't have to be an ass about the answers.
Posted by: didymos on Nov. 05 2010,07:20

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2010,05:14)
Actually, I was being facetious.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wherever Joe has a conversation, "facetious" is a word that is never understood.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 05 2010,08:32

C'mon Joe, show us how it was determined you have an IQ of 150.  It certainly wasn't based on the verbal part (spelling and grammar) of your SAT scores.
Posted by: Wolfhound on Nov. 05 2010,11:13

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 05 2010,07:44)
I'm not a christian you skinny freak and my mother has been dead since 1984.

However your mother likes to come to my basement...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, sorry, guess you're just a garden-variety sexist asshole, then.  It's pretty bad when we can't even blame your religion for your truly egregious character flaws.

Now, then, is this the part where I, the extremely fit and sexy woman (those of you who have been privy to the "special" photos know I do not lie) get to call you, the basement dwelling troglodyte, a fat fuck?  I mean, this is the level of discourse I've come to expect from you, after all.

I will refrain from saying anything about your mother as, if she truly is dead (I have my doubts since your level of honesty is, shall we say, rather questionable), I have no wish to probe that wound.  That being said, "mama jokes" have no effect upon me.  My mom's a big girl and makes even me tremble with fear.  So, she can make her own choices.  *shrug*

Oh, she's also quite a looker, by the way, you lucky dog.  

Posted by: Robin on Nov. 05 2010,11:17

Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 05 2010,11:13)
...(those of you who have been privy to the "special" photos know I do not lie)...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh...SOOO not going there...

**Closes door. Walks quietly away.**
Posted by: Wolfhound on Nov. 05 2010,11:19

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 05 2010,07:45)
wolfie ain't no lady andy are an ignorant punk.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Alack and alas!  He hath wounded me unto the very heart!  My dreams of our torrid love affair have been ground to dust, unrealized.  <*sob*>  Cruel, cruel man to have dashed my hopes so cruelly! <*looks for fainting couch*>
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 05 2010,11:19

Quote (Robin @ Nov. 05 2010,11:17)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 05 2010,11:13)
...(those of you who have been privy to the "special" photos know I do not lie)...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh...SOOO not going there...

**Closes door. Walks quietly away.**
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought it was a photoshop. No-one has legs that long?
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 05 2010,11:29

Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 05 2010,11:19)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 05 2010,07:45)
wolfie ain't no lady andy are an ignorant punk.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Alack and alas!  He hath wounded me unto the very heart!  My dreams of our torrid love affair have been ground to dust, unrealized.  <*sob*>  Cruel, cruel man to have dashed my hopes so cruelly! <*looks for fainting couch*>
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe G "I'll show you what a real man is Wolfie.  How'd you like nine hard inches?'

Wolfhound "There's no way you can get it up three times."
Posted by: midwifetoad on Nov. 05 2010,12:05

Quote (didymos @ Nov. 05 2010,07:20)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2010,05:14)
Actually, I was being facetious.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wherever Joe has a conversation, "facetiousfatuous" is a word that is neveralways understood.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


fixed
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Nov. 05 2010,12:27

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 05 2010,11:29)
 
Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 05 2010,11:19)
     
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 05 2010,07:45)
wolfie ain't no lady andy are an ignorant punk.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Alack and alas!  He hath wounded me unto the very heart!  My dreams of our torrid love affair have been ground to dust, unrealized.  <*sob*>  Cruel, cruel man to have dashed my hopes so cruelly! <*looks for fainting couch*>
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe G "I'll show you what a real man is Wolfie.  How'd you like nine hard inches?'

Wolfhound "There's no way you can get it up three times."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dear Sir (and Ms.)

Please find enclosed bill for repair of one (1) computer monitor, which was working perfectly until your combined witticisms caused our client to snort coffee all over it.

Insincerely yours,
Smaug, Senior Partner

Smaug, Fafner, Orochi, Dragons at Law


:D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 05 2010,13:11

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 05 2010,04:42)
Wrong again occam's afterbirth- the assumed words are still there- meaning the one-wrod sentences are not one-word.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bollocks.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 05 2010,15:33

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2010,13:11)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 05 2010,04:42)
Wrong again occam's afterbirth- the assumed words are still there- meaning the one-wrod sentences are not one-word.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bollocks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Agreed.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 05 2010,15:46

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,15:33)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2010,13:11)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 05 2010,04:42)
Wrong again occam's afterbirth- the assumed words are still there- meaning the one-wrod sentences are not one-word.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bollocks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Agreed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 05 2010,15:51

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2010,15:46)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,15:33)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2010,13:11)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 05 2010,04:42)
Wrong again occam's afterbirth- the assumed words are still there- meaning the one-wrod sentences are not one-word.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bollocks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Agreed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What?
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 05 2010,16:15

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,13:51)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2010,15:46)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,15:33)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2010,13:11)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 05 2010,04:42)
Wrong again occam's afterbirth- the assumed words are still there- meaning the one-wrod sentences are not one-word.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bollocks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Agreed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ha!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 05 2010,16:21

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2010,16:15)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,13:51)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2010,15:46)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,15:33)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2010,13:11)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 05 2010,04:42)
Wrong again occam's afterbirth- the assumed words are still there- meaning the one-wrod sentences are not one-word.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bollocks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Agreed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ha!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really?
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 05 2010,16:41

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,14:21)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2010,16:15)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,13:51)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2010,15:46)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,15:33)
   
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2010,13:11)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 05 2010,04:42)
Wrong again occam's afterbirth- the assumed words are still there- meaning the one-wrod sentences are not one-word.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bollocks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Agreed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ha!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 05 2010,16:43

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2010,16:41)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,14:21)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2010,16:15)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,13:51)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2010,15:46)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,15:33)
   
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2010,13:11)
     
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 05 2010,04:42)
Wrong again occam's afterbirth- the assumed words are still there- meaning the one-wrod sentences are not one-word.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bollocks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Agreed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ha!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aw....
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 05 2010,16:44

Good, Joe; nice of you to drop by.  I'll try to keep the sentences short (but not too short--otherwise you wouldn't be able to understand them.  damn, too late).

How many words are in the sentence, "The red brick fudges the upstairs house."?

Now run back to mommy so you can ignore this pertinent question.  Thanks.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Nov. 05 2010,16:51

Hey, Ice G, you comin' out wid a rap video, yo?

Hey, Ice G, how many verbs in

"    This
 sentence
 no  verb."

Hey, Ice G, how come a "carriage return" works on my laptop and there's no carriage?
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 05 2010,17:04

Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 05 2010,14:51)
Hey, Ice G, you comin' out wid a rap video, yo?

Hey, Ice G, how many verbs in

"    This
 sentence
 no  verb."

Hey, Ice G, how come a "carriage return" works on my laptop and there's no carriage?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't be bothering him with difficult questions, now.  Joe's got things on his mind.  He had a conversation with a girl this week.  First time in months.  Longer, if we don't count his social worker.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 05 2010,17:38

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,17:43)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2010,16:41)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,14:21)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2010,16:15)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,13:51)
   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2010,15:46)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,15:33)
     
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2010,13:11)
     
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 05 2010,04:42)
Wrong again occam's afterbirth- the assumed words are still there- meaning the one-wrod sentences are not one-word.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bollocks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Agreed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ha!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aw....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shit!
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 05 2010,17:40

Hey, Joe.  Why don't you discuss autocatalytic networks over here?  Why run away and spout nonsense at a place where you can safely ignore anything that's said to you?

OM asked you a series of questions about autocatalytic networks which you ignored AND explicitly laid out his reason for doing so.  Just because you ignore things doesn't mean they don't exist (I believe OM may have mention this...).

So, come back and answer some questions instead of running away and claiming no one has ever asked you any questions.  Are you running from ghosts?  Well, yeah, I guess you probably are....
Posted by: didymos on Nov. 05 2010,17:46

Autocatalysis is a worthy topic and all, but I still want Joe to tell me what he thinks hail is made of first.  He could wrap that one up with a one-word sentence.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 05 2010,18:11

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,14:51)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2010,15:46)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,15:33)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2010,13:11)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 05 2010,04:42)
Wrong again occam's afterbirth- the assumed words are still there- meaning the one-wrod sentences are not one-word.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bollocks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Agreed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where?
Posted by: sledgehammer on Nov. 05 2010,18:17

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 05 2010,15:38)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,17:43)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2010,16:41)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,14:21)
   
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2010,16:15)
     
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,13:51)
     
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2010,15:46)
       
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,15:33)
       
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2010,13:11)
         
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 05 2010,04:42)
Wrong again occam's afterbirth- the assumed words are still there- meaning the one-wrod sentences are not one-word.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bollocks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Agreed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ha!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aw....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shit!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Word!
Posted by: sledgehammer on Nov. 05 2010,18:23

Quote (didymos @ Nov. 05 2010,15:46)
Autocatalysis is a worthy topic and all, but I still want Joe to tell me what he thinks hail is made of first.  He could wrap that one up with a one-word sentence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whar ahm from, hail's made o' far n' braemstone
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 05 2010,19:02

Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 05 2010,18:17)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 05 2010,15:38)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,17:43)
   
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2010,16:41)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,14:21)
     
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2010,16:15)
     
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,13:51)
       
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2010,15:46)
       
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,15:33)
         
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2010,13:11)
         
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 05 2010,04:42)
Wrong again occam's afterbirth- the assumed words are still there- meaning the one-wrod sentences are not one-word.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bollocks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Agreed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ha!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aw....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shit!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Word!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Genius!  I nominate sledgehammer for the Brilliant PotW
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Nov. 05 2010,19:05

Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 05 2010,18:17)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 05 2010,15:38)
     
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,17:43)
     
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2010,16:41)
       
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,14:21)
       
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2010,16:15)
         
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,13:51)
         
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2010,15:46)
           
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,15:33)
           
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2010,13:11)
             
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 05 2010,04:42)
Wrong again occam's afterbirth- the assumed words are still there- meaning the one-wrod sentences are not one-word.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bollocks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Agreed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ha!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aw....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shit!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Word!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


D'OH!

The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: didymos on Nov. 05 2010,19:29

BTW, Joe, what do you think about < polysynthetic languages >?
Posted by: rhmc on Nov. 05 2010,20:07

Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 04 2010,21:38)
Quote (rhmc @ Nov. 02 2010,18:46)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 01 2010,10:43)
I think I'd pay $20 just to make that happen...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


perfect.  so where do i meet her?  

and i guess you'll need to send me the twenny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Orlando.  Disney World.  Behind Cinderella's Castle.  I'll bring the ostrich plumes and greasepaint.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


sounds like i'm being setup to get mugged by the little mermaid's entourage.

does rich have to pay me more for that?
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 05 2010,21:08

Joe lends insight into the EF.  Apparently, you input Stonehenge.  This is the only requisite step!  Easy to use and quick clean-up as well.

The steps to determine if Stonehenge was designed:

1.  Put Stonehenge into EF
2.  Compare Stonehenge to Stonehnge
3.  If Stonehenge looks like Stonehenge, then:

DESIGN!!!!

Or maybe I'm missing some of the details?  I'm sure Joe is more than willing to fill any of these missing details in.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 05 2010,21:11

Oh yeah, Joe.  As I recall, you were going to explain how to calculate CSI and EF and ASPCA the last time we talked.

How long a string do you need to have to run the calculations?

I can get you two binary strings, one random and one that will access a particular memory block on an 8088 processor.  Will those be long enough for you to run the calculations on?

I'm looking forward to it.

Thanks
Posted by: Badger3k on Nov. 05 2010,23:25

Quote (rhmc @ Nov. 05 2010,20:07)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 04 2010,21:38)
Quote (rhmc @ Nov. 02 2010,18:46)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 01 2010,10:43)
I think I'd pay $20 just to make that happen...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


perfect.  so where do i meet her?  

and i guess you'll need to send me the twenny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Orlando.  Disney World.  Behind Cinderella's Castle.  I'll bring the ostrich plumes and greasepaint.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


sounds like i'm being setup to get mugged by the little mermaid's entourage.

does rich have to pay me more for that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only if you bring the midgets.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 06 2010,04:51

Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Nov. 05 2010,20:05)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 05 2010,18:17)
   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 05 2010,15:38)
       
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,17:43)
       
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2010,16:41)
         
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,14:21)
         
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2010,16:15)
           
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,13:51)
           
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2010,15:46)
             
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,15:33)
             
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2010,13:11)
               
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 05 2010,04:42)
Wrong again occam's afterbirth- the assumed words are still there- meaning the one-wrod sentences are not one-word.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bollocks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Agreed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ha!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aw....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shit!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Word!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


D'OH!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Natch.
Posted by: didymos on Nov. 06 2010,05:07

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 06 2010,02:51)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Nov. 05 2010,20:05)
 
Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 05 2010,18:17)
     
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 05 2010,15:38)
       
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,17:43)
         
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2010,16:41)
         
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,14:21)
           
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2010,16:15)
           
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,13:51)
             
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2010,15:46)
             
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,15:33)
               
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2010,13:11)
               
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 05 2010,04:42)
Wrong again occam's afterbirth- the assumed words are still there- meaning the one-wrod sentences are not one-word.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bollocks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Agreed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ha!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aw....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shit!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Word!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


D'OH!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Natch.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


SILENCE!
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 06 2010,06:04

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 05 2010,12:45)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 05 2010,04:56)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 05 2010,01:37)
 
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 03 2010,04:42)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Oct. 29 2010,12:46)
[SNIP]

210 lbs- and I am standing up tp bullies.

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


{Spits coffee everywhere}

BWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

{deep breath}

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA  BWAHAHA BWAAAAHAHAHAHA HA AHHHH HA

Yeah Joe, you're a real hero. Standing up to those mean scientists and all. The possibility that you are simply too biased, uneducated and simply fucking stupid to properly consider any scientific subject, let alone this one, must never occur to you.

Oh wait, psychology 101, of course it's occurred to you. That's why you're dancing about like a little neutered yappy dog trying to fight a lion. Your behaviour couldn't be any more transparent...or funnier...if you tried.

Anyway, enough. I have better things to do than bandy words with insignificant internet maggots. Wake me when you say something interesting, tough guy. Sure is easy to be tough behind that keyboard isn't it, Joey? Go on tough guy, bluster some more.

Yap yap yap.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nice evotardgasm bitch.

Is ignorant spewage all you have?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's nice, dear. Well done. You typed all that yourself too I bet. Good moron, here's a biscuit.

Joey, you are too easy to manipulate. It's almost cruel. Carry on trolling you ignorant fuckknuckle.

Louis

ETA: I'm also loving the sexism, Joey. Classy. Bet you're a real hit with the ladies. As well as being super fit and clever and everything you claim about yourself. Gosh, aren't you just special? Yap on doggy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


wolfie ain't no lady andy are an ignorant punk.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


{Wondering to himself how long he can keep yanking the junk yard yapper's chain}

How do you know Wolfie isn't a lady? The website "wolfieisalady.com" would disagree with you. As would her entry in the Encyclopedia Ladytanica. I'll have you know she even gets out of the bath to pee.* Now that is classy.

Now enough comedic defending of someone who absolutely needs no defending, especially by the likes of me. Onto the comedy abuse and mocking the moronic...

Joey, Joey, Joey. What more can one say than you are clearly a deluded little chuffer with aspirations to reach the lofty heights of inadequacy. H L Mencken's quip about the religious was never more accurate than it is for you:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
God is the immemorial refuge of the incompetent, the helpless, the miserable. They find not only sanctuary in His arms, but also a kind of superiority, soothing to their macerated egos: He will set them above their betters.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is your mentality in a nutshell, yappy dog. You think your ridiculous fictional deity somehow makes you a special snowflake and reality optional for you. Awww, precious. If no one's bothered to let you know yet, let me: it's bullshit. Shhh don't tell anyone I blabbed.

Now I'm sure you'll manage to yap out some insult or another, you usually do, but you simply don't get that no one cares. Your chain is being yanked. You are a worthless basement dwelling little trollish excresence. Nothing more. You're an insignificant shitestain on the underpants of online ID creationist activism. Which is itself a worthless polyp on the arse crack of apologetic sophistry for a variety of fictional nonsenses. All your bluster, all your venom (which is weak frothy piss water at best anyway) is for naught. Due to the efforts of genuinely talented and capable people, i.e. something you could never aspire to be, the attempts by deluded drivellers and mindless morons such as yourself to stamp your spoiled, entitled little feet and bowdlerise science have failed. Too bad, so sad, buh bye.

What will you yap next little doggy?

Louis

*Allegedly.

P.S. I wonder what it will take to actually cause little JoeJoe the Dog Faced shithead to have a fatal fit of apoplexy at the keyboard in his mummy's basement? Will he be discovered in a puddle of his own faeces and wankrags? Tune in next week to discover the fate of JoeJoe the UberDumb.

P.P.S. Too harsh? Sorry I was reading Pharyngula, it always brings out the worst in a chap.
Posted by: didymos on Nov. 06 2010,06:35

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 06 2010,04:04)
Now I'm sure you'll manage to yap out some insult or another, you usually do, but you simply don't get that no one cares.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I must disagree.  I do actually care about his insults.  I mean, they're pathetically weak and unimaginative and they suck and all that, and only someone as all-round deficient as the inimitable JoeG would actually feel insulted by them, but it's funny to watch him fail and fail again while so obviously confident that he's succeeded at hitting us where we live.

So please, Joe: don't you listen to mean 'ol Louis.  Listen to this guy:


Posted by: Wolfhound on Nov. 06 2010,11:21

Quote (Badger3k @ Nov. 06 2010,00:25)
Quote (rhmc @ Nov. 05 2010,20:07)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 04 2010,21:38)
 
Quote (rhmc @ Nov. 02 2010,18:46)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 01 2010,10:43)
I think I'd pay $20 just to make that happen...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


perfect.  so where do i meet her?  

and i guess you'll need to send me the twenny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Orlando.  Disney World.  Behind Cinderella's Castle.  I'll bring the ostrich plumes and greasepaint.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


sounds like i'm being setup to get mugged by the little mermaid's entourage.

does rich have to pay me more for that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only if you bring the midgets.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not midgets, dwarves.  If you call them midgets they get Grumpy.  I swear, though, the next one that says "Hi, Ho'" to me gets tossed.   :angry:
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 06 2010,14:00

Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 06 2010,11:21)
Quote (Badger3k @ Nov. 06 2010,00:25)
Quote (rhmc @ Nov. 05 2010,20:07)
 
Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 04 2010,21:38)
 
Quote (rhmc @ Nov. 02 2010,18:46)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 01 2010,10:43)
I think I'd pay $20 just to make that happen...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


perfect.  so where do i meet her?  

and i guess you'll need to send me the twenny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Orlando.  Disney World.  Behind Cinderella's Castle.  I'll bring the ostrich plumes and greasepaint.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


sounds like i'm being setup to get mugged by the little mermaid's entourage.

does rich have to pay me more for that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only if you bring the midgets.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not midgets, dwarves.  If you call them midgets they get Grumpy.  I swear, though, the next one that says "Hi, Ho'" to me gets tossed.   :angry:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


'tossed' has a slightly different meaning when midgets... ahem... dwarves aren't involved.
Posted by: Wolfhound on Nov. 06 2010,14:08

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 06 2010,15:00)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 06 2010,11:21)
Quote (Badger3k @ Nov. 06 2010,00:25)
 
Quote (rhmc @ Nov. 05 2010,20:07)
 
Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 04 2010,21:38)
   
Quote (rhmc @ Nov. 02 2010,18:46)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 01 2010,10:43)
I think I'd pay $20 just to make that happen...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


perfect.  so where do i meet her?  

and i guess you'll need to send me the twenny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Orlando.  Disney World.  Behind Cinderella's Castle.  I'll bring the ostrich plumes and greasepaint.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


sounds like i'm being setup to get mugged by the little mermaid's entourage.

does rich have to pay me more for that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only if you bring the midgets.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not midgets, dwarves.  If you call them midgets they get Grumpy.  I swear, though, the next one that says "Hi, Ho'" to me gets tossed.   :angry:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


'tossed' has a slightly different meaning when midgets... ahem... dwarves aren't involved.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ima stay away from the salad, TYVM.  No amount of dressing can make that palatable to me.   :p
Posted by: jeffox on Nov. 07 2010,11:45

I think that, in Joe's case, fairies wear boots.
My 2c.  ;)
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 08 2010,12:46

Stonehenge itself is put through the EF:

< https://www.blogger.com/comment....0359372 >

Must be a big filter..
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Nov. 08 2010,15:11

Quote (jeffox @ Nov. 07 2010,17:45)
I think that, in Joe's case, fairies wear boots.
My 2c.  ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey! Don't mess with the < Fairies >!!!
Posted by: MichaelJ on Nov. 08 2010,17:50

Do any of these clowns wonder why Dembski never talks about EF and CSI any more? Dembski himself basically came out and admitted that without perfect knowledge you can't calculate the EF of even the simplest systems, that you will get false positives and false negatives.

He did retract it but only we all laughed at him again.

Even though Joe likes to ignore all of the evidence all he is saying is that scientists don't know everything therefore God.

The EF probably would not apply to alien technology. How do you know a crystal is a crystal and not an unpowered alien computer?
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 09 2010,04:34

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 08 2010,21:11)
Quote (jeffox @ Nov. 07 2010,17:45)
I think that, in Joe's case, fairies wear boots.
My 2c.  ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey! Don't mess with the < Fairies >!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pfff who are they? Never heard of them. Clearly some bunch of chancers. And that bloke on the keyboard...possibly French.

I know, shocking. Someone should do something.

;-)

Louis
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 09 2010,09:04

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 09 2010,02:34)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 08 2010,21:11)
Quote (jeffox @ Nov. 07 2010,17:45)
I think that, in Joe's case, fairies wear boots.
My 2c.  ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey! Don't mess with the < Fairies >!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pfff who are they? Never heard of them. Clearly some bunch of chancers. And that bloke on the keyboard...possibly French.

I know, shocking. Someone should do something.

;-)

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Masters of the tasteful understatement. ;-)

Lately I've been more into < mashups >, myself.
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 09 2010,12:44

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 05 2010,08:32)
C'mon Joe, show us how it was determined you have an IQ of 150.  It certainly wasn't based on the verbal part (spelling and grammar) of your SAT scores.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My IQ was determined by taking tests that determine IQs.

Do you measure yours with a dipstick?

My SAT scores- 680 English/ grammer / 720 math- I had a bad day.
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 09 2010,12:46

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,10:44)
My SAT scores- 680 English/ grammer
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Teh speling, not so gud.
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 09 2010,12:46

Quote (blipey @ Nov. 05 2010,21:08)
Joe lends insight into the EF.  Apparently, you input Stonehenge.  This is the only requisite step!  Easy to use and quick clean-up as well.

The steps to determine if Stonehenge was designed:

1.  Put Stonehenge into EF
2.  Compare Stonehenge to Stonehnge
3.  If Stonehenge looks like Stonehenge, then:

DESIGN!!!!

Or maybe I'm missing some of the details?  I'm sure Joe is more than willing to fill any of these missing details in.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not only are you missing details you are missing a brain you retarded clown.
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 09 2010,12:48

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 09 2010,12:46)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,10:44)
My SAT scores- 680 English/ grammer
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Teh speling, not so gud.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It was better when I didn't depend on spellchecker so much.

It is just like my math was better when I didn't use a calculator all the time.

But I wouldn't expect a dipshit like you to understand that.
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 09 2010,12:48

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,10:46)
Not only are you missing details you are missing a brain you retarded clown.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Teh debating skills, not so gud either.
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 09 2010,12:49

Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 08 2010,17:50)
Do any of these clowns wonder why Dembski never talks about EF and CSI any more? Dembski himself basically came out and admitted that without perfect knowledge you can't calculate the EF of even the simplest systems, that you will get false positives and false negatives.

He did retract it but only we all laughed at him again.

Even though Joe likes to ignore all of the evidence all he is saying is that scientists don't know everything therefore God.

The EF probably would not apply to alien technology. How do you know a crystal is a crystal and not an unpowered alien computer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Umm Dembski says the EF is still good.

What evidence do I ignore?  Also I don't say God...
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 09 2010,12:50

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 09 2010,12:48)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,10:46)
Not only are you missing details you are missing a brain you retarded clown.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Teh debating skills, not so gud either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Debating? You assholes don't know the first thing about debating.

I was just making an observation...
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 09 2010,12:54

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,12:50)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 09 2010,12:48)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,10:46)
Not only are you missing details you are missing a brain you retarded clown.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Teh debating skills, not so gud either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Debating? You assholes don't know the first thing about debating.

I was just making an observation...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi Jim/Joe!
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 09 2010,12:55

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 09 2010,12:54)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,12:50)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 09 2010,12:48)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,10:46)
Not only are you missing details you are missing a brain you retarded clown.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Teh debating skills, not so gud either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Debating? You assholes don't know the first thing about debating.

I was just making an observation...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi Jim/Joe!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi muskrat Rich!

Rich Hughes is so concerned for blipey it brought a song to my head:

<b>"Muskrat blipey, muskrat Rich
Rich says to blipey come and be my bitch
And they shimmy
blipey's so skinny"

"And they whirled and they twirled and they tangoed
Singin' and jingin' the jango
Floatin' like the heavens above
It looks like muskrat love"</b>
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Nov. 09 2010,13:03

However, you have to appreciate Joe's [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-a-multiverse-proponent-should-be-open-to-young-earth-creationism-and-skeptical-of-man-

%3Cbr%3Emade-global-warming/#comment-367318] concise evalutation[/URL] of vjtorley's 6000-year-old-multiverse scenario:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is this OP going to come out in movie form any time soon?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



OTOH, his poetry sucks.
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 09 2010,13:06

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 09 2010,13:03)
However, you have to appreciate Joe's [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-a-multiverse-proponent-should-be-open-to-young-earth-creationism-and-skeptical-of-man-


%3Cbr%3Emade-global-warming/#comment-367318] concise evalutation[/URL] of vjtorley's 6000-year-old-multiverse scenario:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is this OP going to come out in movie form any time soon?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



OTOH, his poetry sucks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks Kat, I am glad someone enjoyed that post on UD.

And what poetry are you referring to? My re-wording of a song?
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 09 2010,13:12

To wolfhound-

My most humble apologies for the way I have responded to you. I thought it was funny that the only evo to step up and want to mix it up with me was a girl. So I wanted to see if there were any men there that would step up once you were offended/ insulted by me. No one did.

BTW I am a sexist and I am also a lesbian trapped in a man's body- talk about confusion.... LoL!!!

But again my bad, you the girl, good luck in life...
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 09 2010,13:14

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,13:06)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 09 2010,13:03)
However, you have to appreciate Joe's [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-a-multiverse-proponent-should-be-open-to-young-earth-creationism-and-skeptical-of-man-



%3Cbr%3Emade-global-warming/#comment-367318] concise evalutation[/URL] of vjtorley's 6000-year-old-multiverse scenario:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is this OP going to come out in movie form any time soon?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



OTOH, his poetry sucks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks Kat, I am glad someone enjoyed that post on UD.

And what poetry are you referring to? My re-wording of a song?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How much CSI in that song, Joe/Jim?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 09 2010,13:15

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,13:12)
To wolfhound-

My most humble apologies for the way I have responded to you. I thought it was funny that the only evo to step up and want to mix it up with me was a girl. So I wanted to see if there were any men there that would step up once you were offended/ insulted by me. No one did.

BTW I am a sexist and I am also a lesbian trapped in a man's body- talk about confusion.... LoL!!!

But again my bad, you the girl, good luck in life...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What did you want, Joe, someone to bash you?

You're an old cripple; no-one here is going to do that.
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 09 2010,13:15

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 09 2010,13:14)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,13:06)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 09 2010,13:03)
However, you have to appreciate Joe's [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-a-multiverse-proponent-should-be-open-to-young-earth-creationism-and-skeptical-of-man-




%3Cbr%3Emade-global-warming/#comment-367318] concise evalutation[/URL] of vjtorley's 6000-year-old-multiverse scenario:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is this OP going to come out in movie form any time soon?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



OTOH, his poetry sucks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks Kat, I am glad someone enjoyed that post on UD.

And what poetry are you referring to? My re-wording of a song?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How much CSI in that song, Joe/Jim?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Muskrat Rich,

It only matters if CSI is present or not, just as I have been telling you over and over again yet you seem too stupid to grasp that.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 09 2010,13:16

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,13:15)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 09 2010,13:14)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,13:06)
 
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 09 2010,13:03)
However, you have to appreciate Joe's [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-a-multiverse-proponent-should-be-open-to-young-earth-creationism-and-skeptical-of-man-





%3Cbr%3Emade-global-warming/#comment-367318] concise evalutation[/URL] of vjtorley's 6000-year-old-multiverse scenario:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is this OP going to come out in movie form any time soon?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



OTOH, his poetry sucks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks Kat, I am glad someone enjoyed that post on UD.

And what poetry are you referring to? My re-wording of a song?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How much CSI in that song, Joe/Jim?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Muskrat Rich,

It only matters if CSI is present or not, just as I have been telling you over and over again yet you seem too stupid to grasp that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How would one know? wouldn't you need some empirical hurdle?
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 09 2010,13:17

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 09 2010,13:15)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,13:12)
To wolfhound-

My most humble apologies for the way I have responded to you. I thought it was funny that the only evo to step up and want to mix it up with me was a girl. So I wanted to see if there were any men there that would step up once you were offended/ insulted by me. No one did.

BTW I am a sexist and I am also a lesbian trapped in a man's body- talk about confusion.... LoL!!!

But again my bad, you the girl, good luck in life...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What did you want, Joe, someone to bash you?

You're an old cripple; no-one here is going to do that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wouold love for one or two of you assholes to try. But you are all justr a bunch of low-life cowards.

Also I ain't crippled and my age, well I could kick your ass even if I was over 100.

And no one there is going to do that because no one there can do that.
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 09 2010,13:19

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 09 2010,13:16)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,13:15)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 09 2010,13:14)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,13:06)
 
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 09 2010,13:03)
However, you have to appreciate Joe's [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-a-multiverse-proponent-should-be-open-to-young-earth-creationism-and-skeptical-of-man-






%3Cbr%3Emade-global-warming/#comment-367318] concise evalutation[/URL] of vjtorley's 6000-year-old-multiverse scenario:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is this OP going to come out in movie form any time soon?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



OTOH, his poetry sucks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks Kat, I am glad someone enjoyed that post on UD.

And what poetry are you referring to? My re-wording of a song?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How much CSI in that song, Joe/Jim?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Muskrat Rich,

It only matters if CSI is present or not, just as I have been telling you over and over again yet you seem too stupid to grasp that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How would one know? wouldn't you need some empirical hurdle?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have told you how to make that determination you mental midget, I mean dwarf.

What the fuck is wrong with you muskrat Rich? Did blipey infect you with something?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 09 2010,13:25

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,13:17)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 09 2010,13:15)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,13:12)
To wolfhound-

My most humble apologies for the way I have responded to you. I thought it was funny that the only evo to step up and want to mix it up with me was a girl. So I wanted to see if there were any men there that would step up once you were offended/ insulted by me. No one did.

BTW I am a sexist and I am also a lesbian trapped in a man's body- talk about confusion.... LoL!!!

But again my bad, you the girl, good luck in life...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What did you want, Joe, someone to bash you?

You're an old cripple; no-one here is going to do that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wouold love for one or two of you assholes to try. But you are all justr a bunch of low-life cowards.

Also I ain't crippled and my age, well I could kick your ass even if I was over 100.

And no one there is going to do that because no one there can do that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let's see if we can recap the facts. Feel free to correct

1) You fix fridges
2) You know dragonflies play
3) You have top secret government clearance
4) You were in Iraq
5) You hurt your back/leg
6) You are Muslim
7) Your IQ is 150 (hurrah for round numbers!)
8) You can bench 300lbs (hurrah for round numbers!) - (what's that the bar, 4 plates, 2 x 35 and 2 x 2.5?) that's quite a strange lift!
9) Design is a mechanism
10) You can calculate CSI by counting the words/ letters
11) You teach ID at school
12) You're not Jim, no siree bob.
13) The only people who read your make fun of you

Feel free to extend the list anyone else..

These don't seem too coherent to me. Methinks your mental self-image and reality are at odds.

Edited to fix typos, spellinx, etc.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 09 2010,13:25

Hi Joe,

As I recall, last time you were around, you were going to explain how to calculate CSI and EF and all that good stuff.

What amount of information do you need and would binary be sufficient?

I'm thinking I've got a bit of machine code that retrieves the contents of a certain memory location and then you can compare that to a random string of binary code.

Don't worry about the depth of your explanation.  In my current job, I sit next to 8 mathematicians, 2 of whom have doctoral degrees and 4 have masters degrees in various math topics.  I am also good friends with 3 psycometricians, all of whom have doctoral degrees in statistics.

Thanks
Posted by: olegt on Nov. 09 2010,13:26

Oh, Joe is here again! How's you collaboration with ID guy going? When are you going to publish your work?
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 09 2010,13:39

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 09 2010,13:25)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,13:17)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 09 2010,13:15)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,13:12)
To wolfhound-

My most humble apologies for the way I have responded to you. I thought it was funny that the only evo to step up and want to mix it up with me was a girl. So I wanted to see if there were any men there that would step up once you were offended/ insulted by me. No one did.

BTW I am a sexist and I am also a lesbian trapped in a man's body- talk about confusion.... LoL!!!

But again my bad, you the girl, good luck in life...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What did you want, Joe, someone to bash you?

You're an old cripple; no-one here is going to do that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wouold love for one or two of you assholes to try. But you are all justr a bunch of low-life cowards.

Also I ain't crippled and my age, well I could kick your ass even if I was over 100.

And no one there is going to do that because no one there can do that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let's see if we can recap the facts. Feel free to correct

1) You fix fridges
2) You know dragonflies play
3) You have top secret governemt clearance
4) You were in Iraq
5) You hurt your back/leg
6) You are muslim
7) Your IQ is 150 (hurrah for round numbers!)
8) You can bench 300lbs (hurrah for round numbers!) - (what's that the bar, 4 plates, 2 x 35 and 2 x 2.5?) that's quite a strange lift!
9) Design is a mechanism
10) You can caluclate CSI by couting the words/ letters
11) You teach ID at school
12) You're not Jim, no siree bob.
13) The only people who read your make fun of you

Feel free to extend the list anyone else..

These don't seem too coherent to me. Methinks your mental self-image and reality are at odds.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1) You fix fridges

I can and have. I can and have fixed many things. So what?

2) You know dragonflies play

I have observed that just as Ms Goodall observed chimps using tools.

3) You have top secret governemt clearance

I had a security clearance Clarance.

4) You were in Iraq[/i

Yes I was. I have a picture of me in front of one of saddam's palaces in west Baghdad.

I have been to many places- I met my wife in Argentina.

[i]5) You hurt your back/leg


I blew out my knee in Iraq. And my back problems are most likely due to jumping out of perfectly good airplanes.

7) Your IQ is 150 (hurrah for round numbers!)

That was a round-off from the average of 4 test results.

8) You can bench 300lbs (hurrah for round numbers!) - (what's that the bar, 4 plates, 2 x 35 and 2 x 2.5?) that's quite a strange lift!

The bar is 45- 50 lbs. + 70 + 5 = not 300.

9) Design is a mechanism

That much is obvious to anyone who can read a dictionary.

10) You can caluclate CSI by couting the words/ letters

Only in a specified sentence.

11) You teach ID at school

No. I have an Intelligent Design Awareness day at school.

12) You're not Jim, no siree bob.

You can meet us both- but you are too much of a coward to do so.

13) The only people who read your make fun of you

The people who make fun of me are drooling imbeciles, like you
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 09 2010,13:40

Quote (olegt @ Nov. 09 2010,13:26)
Oh, Joe is here again! How's you collaboration with ID guy going? When are you going to publish your work?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey oleg, the cowardly liar is here again!

When are you going to have the balls to actually support your position?
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 09 2010,13:41

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 09 2010,13:25)
Hi Joe,

As I recall, last time you were around, you were going to explain how to calculate CSI and EF and all that good stuff.

What amount of information do you need and would binary be sufficient?

I'm thinking I've got a bit of machine code that retrieves the contents of a certain memory location and then you can compare that to a random string of binary code.

Don't worry about the depth of your explanation.  In my current job, I sit next to 8 mathematicians, 2 of whom have doctoral degrees and 4 have masters degrees in various math topics.  I am also good friends with 3 psycometricians, all of whom have doctoral degrees in statistics.

Thanks
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi Ogre,

I remember tlling you not to worry about ID and instead you need to focus on finding positive evidence for your position.

How is that working out?
Posted by: olegt on Nov. 09 2010,13:43

Joe wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You can meet us both- but you are too much of a coward to do so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What a great idea! Bring "Jim" here and we'll talk to you both. That should be entertaining!
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 09 2010,13:46

Quote (olegt @ Nov. 09 2010,13:43)
Joe wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You can meet us both- but you are too much of a coward to do so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What a great idea! Bring "Jim" here and we'll talk to you both. That should be entertaining!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We will drive down to John Hopkins- will that suffice?

That will really be entertaining!!!!!
Posted by: olegt on Nov. 09 2010,13:51

Be my guest, Joe! My colleagues and grad students will pay big bucks to see you.

Meanwhile, invite ID guy here and introduce us to your imaginary friend.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 09 2010,13:51

1) You fix fridges

I can and have. I can and have fixed many things. So what?

Are Sub-zeros worth the money?

2) You know dragonflies play

I have observed that just as Ms Goodall observed chimps using tools.

what the the test for "play"?

3) You have top secret governemt clearance

I had a security clearance Clarance.

I'll bet you were MI6 / Deltafarce / Black opps!

4) You were in Iraq

Yes I was. I have a picture of me in front of one of saddam's palaces in west Baghdad.

Cool! post it!

I have been to many places- I met my wife in Argentina.

5) You hurt your back/leg

I blew out my knee in Iraq. And my back problems are most likely due to jumping out of perfectly good airplanes.

Well, take it easy - don't get into any fights with the youngsters

7) Your IQ is 150 (hurrah for round numbers!)

That was a round-off from the average of 4 test results.

no written component I take it?

8) You can bench 300lbs (hurrah for round numbers!) - (what's that the bar, 4 plates, 2 x 35 and 2 x 2.5?) that's quite a strange lift!

The bar is 45- 50 lbs. + 70 + 5 = not 300.

All the bars I've seen are 45. You probably use a manly-man Chuck Norris one that's heavier
9) Design is a mechanism

That much is obvious to anyone who can read a dictionary.

You should get Dembski on board. Mechanism has been troubling him for some time

10) You can caluclate CSI by couting the words/ letters

So "dog" had less CSI that "fruit"which has less CSI than "grapefruit" which has less CSI than "pamplemousse"?

Only in a specified sentence.

11) You teach ID at school

No. I have an Intelligent Design Awareness day at school.

what activities do you do?

12) You're not Jim, no siree bob.

You can meet us both- but you are too much of a coward to do so.

I'm not going on a goose-chase but come to chicago and pick a restuarant

13) The only people who read your *BLOG* make fun of you

The people who make fun of me are drooling imbeciles, like you

Awwwww

--------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

[b] Why is science blind without religion?

Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 09 2010,13:52

Quote (olegt @ Nov. 09 2010,13:51)
Be my guest, Joe! My colleagues and grad students will pay big bucks to see you.

Meanwhile, invite ID guy here and introduce us to your imaginary friend.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can i come too?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 09 2010,13:55

< https://www.blogger.com/comment....9587359 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Rich Hughes said...
You should post more at ATBC - no censorship, posts automatically approved, bigger readership.. :-D

2:35 PM

Joe G said...
No I have to take a shower every time I leave that place.

That place is full of clueless losers- i just like going there and poking people in the hopes one wants to meet me and take a swing...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I could affectionately shake your Zimmer frame if that helps?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 09 2010,14:08

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,13:41)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 09 2010,13:25)
Hi Joe,

As I recall, last time you were around, you were going to explain how to calculate CSI and EF and all that good stuff.

What amount of information do you need and would binary be sufficient?

I'm thinking I've got a bit of machine code that retrieves the contents of a certain memory location and then you can compare that to a random string of binary code.

Don't worry about the depth of your explanation.  In my current job, I sit next to 8 mathematicians, 2 of whom have doctoral degrees and 4 have masters degrees in various math topics.  I am also good friends with 3 psycometricians, all of whom have doctoral degrees in statistics.

Thanks
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi Ogre,

I remember tlling you not to worry about ID and instead you need to focus on finding positive evidence for your position.

How is that working out?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah yes, I didn't think you could.  Thanks for the confirmation.

My position is just fine thank you...  approximately 14,000 peer-reviewed papers published this year... not including review papers and disagreement papers.

What have you got?  A YEC mathematician who refuses to publish his own work.

Got it, thanks.
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 09 2010,14:19

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,12:46)
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 05 2010,21:08)
Joe lends insight into the EF.  Apparently, you input Stonehenge.  This is the only requisite step!  Easy to use and quick clean-up as well.

The steps to determine if Stonehenge was designed:

1.  Put Stonehenge into EF
2.  Compare Stonehenge to Stonehnge
3.  If Stonehenge looks like Stonehenge, then:

DESIGN!!!!

Or maybe I'm missing some of the details?  I'm sure Joe is more than willing to fill any of these missing details in.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not only are you missing details you are missing a brain you retarded clown.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you're unable to fill in the details.  Just say so.

Also, how does it feel to have an SAT score significantly lower than a clown?

Hint: it shouldn't make that much difference...see how I wasted all those words?
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 09 2010,14:22

While you're here, Joe perhaps you can answer this very simple question?

How many words are in the sentence, "The red brick fudges the upstairs house."?
Posted by: sledgehammer on Nov. 09 2010,15:19

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,10:44)


It is just like my math was better when I didn't use a calculator all the time.

But I wouldn't expect a dipshit like you to understand that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Calculators do < arithmetic. >    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Arithmetic or arithmetics is the oldest and most elementary branch of mathematics ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 Seems fitting.
Posted by: phhht on Nov. 09 2010,15:25

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,13:41)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 09 2010,13:25)
Hi Joe,

As I recall, last time you were around, you were going to explain how to calculate CSI and EF and all that good stuff.

What amount of information do you need and would binary be sufficient?

I'm thinking I've got a bit of machine code that retrieves the contents of a certain memory location and then you can compare that to a random string of binary code.

Don't worry about the depth of your explanation.  In my current job, I sit next to 8 mathematicians, 2 of whom have doctoral degrees and 4 have masters degrees in various math topics.  I am also good friends with 3 psycometricians, all of whom have doctoral degrees in statistics.

Thanks
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi Ogre,

I remember t[e]lling you not to worry about ID and instead you need to focus on finding positive evidence for your position.

How is that working out?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A classic lame, lame argument, there, Joey:

< http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion....73.html >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 09 2010,15:37

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 09 2010,13:55)
< https://www.blogger.com/comment....9587359 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Rich Hughes said...
You should post more at ATBC - no censorship, posts automatically approved, bigger readership.. :-D

2:35 PM

Joe G said...
No I have to take a shower every time I leave that place.

That place is full of clueless losers- i just like going there and poking people in the hopes one wants to meet me and take a swing...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I could affectionately shake your Zimmer frame if that helps?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This thread is getting better and better!
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 09 2010,18:55

< Joe and Dembski... >
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 09 2010,19:14

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,19:17)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 09 2010,13:15)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,13:12)
To wolfhound-

My most humble apologies for the way I have responded to you. I thought it was funny that the only evo to step up and want to mix it up with me was a girl. So I wanted to see if there were any men there that would step up once you were offended/ insulted by me. No one did.

BTW I am a sexist and I am also a lesbian trapped in a man's body- talk about confusion.... LoL!!!

But again my bad, you the girl, good luck in life...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What did you want, Joe, someone to bash you?

You're an old cripple; no-one here is going to do that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wouold love for one or two of you assholes to try. But you are all justr a bunch of low-life cowards.

Also I ain't crippled and my age, well I could kick your ass even if I was over 100.

And no one there is going to do that because no one there can do that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ooooh gosh! Isn't he impressive and tough everyone? What a big, manly man. I smell overcompensation.

Anyone wanting to bet on when he'll come out of the closet as a submissive twink with a massive bear fetish?

Louis

ETA: Joe, I also notice you keep asking to meet up with various members of AtBC. Are you hoping someone's going to slip you a length of hot man sausage? Not that there's anything wrong with that sort of thing, each to their own sayeth I, but surely you can find a more suitable venue on the internet to {ahem} explore your pecadillos.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 09 2010,21:10

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 09 2010,20:14)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,19:17)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 09 2010,13:15)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,13:12)
To wolfhound-

My most humble apologies for the way I have responded to you. I thought it was funny that the only evo to step up and want to mix it up with me was a girl. So I wanted to see if there were any men there that would step up once you were offended/ insulted by me. No one did.

BTW I am a sexist and I am also a lesbian trapped in a man's body- talk about confusion.... LoL!!!

But again my bad, you the girl, good luck in life...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What did you want, Joe, someone to bash you?

You're an old cripple; no-one here is going to do that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wouold love for one or two of you assholes to try. But you are all justr a bunch of low-life cowards.

Also I ain't crippled and my age, well I could kick your ass even if I was over 100.

And no one there is going to do that because no one there can do that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ooooh gosh! Isn't he impressive and tough everyone? What a big, manly man. I smell overcompensation.

Anyone wanting to bet on when he'll come out of the closet as a submissive twink with a massive bear fetish?

Louis

ETA: Joe, I also notice you keep asking to meet up with various members of AtBC. Are you hoping someone's going to slip you a length of hot man sausage? Not that there's anything wrong with that sort of thing, each to their own sayeth I, but surely you can find a more suitable venue on the internet to {ahem} explore your pecadillos.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Overcompensation? Poor, pitiful Joe is so far in the closet he can see Narnia from his house.


...not that there's anything wrong with that.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 09 2010,21:14

Oh. And P.S.

Calling out Wolfhound if you knew she was a girl? Big man, you are. You're a first class pussy.

You should have went with, "Oh, sorry. Didn't know you were a girl." At least you'd have looked like a pussy with a little bit of class.

At any rate, I'd bet a Franklin on her making you her bitch in under ten seconds, you fucking wanker.
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 09 2010,23:40

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 09 2010,19:10)
Overcompensation?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Yep. >
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Nov. 10 2010,11:21

Joe G:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And my back problems are most likely due to jumping out of perfectly good airplanes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oooohhh!!! I can take him on that one anytime. I'm a former paratrooper and currently a skydiving instructor.

Joe, let's talk about skidiving. No googling allowed!
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 10 2010,12:26

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 10 2010,11:21)
Joe G:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And my back problems are most likely due to jumping out of perfectly good airplanes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oooohhh!!! I can take him on that one anytime. I'm a former paratrooper and currently a skydiving instructor.

Joe, let's talk about skidiving. No googling allowed!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You would have to Google, you pansy evotard, to know as much about HALO (I Googled that...) as an uber-top-secret black-op commando like me!  Also you molest children so don't think I can't take you when you show up at my house (which you're too scared to do).  See how much nature operating freely will help you then, &@*(%@)!!!

Is that about right, Joe?  I thought I'd be helpful.  I know you don't want to shower too much, it taking away all the kook cred and all.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 10 2010,12:30

Reciprocating Bill is always a pleasure to read:

< https://www.blogger.com/comment....4113044 >
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 10 2010,12:35

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 10 2010,11:21)
Joe G:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And my back problems are most likely due to jumping out of perfectly good airplanes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oooohhh!!! I can take him on that one anytime. I'm a former paratrooper and currently a skydiving instructor.

Joe, let's talk about skidiving. No googling allowed!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


First he said he hurt his knee while being a fighting hero in Iraq, then it was his back that was hurt in combat there, now he says his back was hurt from skydiving.

Joe is living proof of the adage 'a liar need a good memory' to keep his stories straight.

Do we have any pilots here?  Joe also claimed to be a pilot qualified to fly multi-engine aircraft.  That would be interesting to quiz him on.  I wonder how he passes the FAA medical requirements with all of his debilitating war injuries?
Posted by: phhht on Nov. 10 2010,21:20

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,12:30)
Reciprocating Bill is always a pleasure to read:

< https://www.blogger.com/comment....4113044 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Talk about empty of content!  GI Joe is an intellectual vacuum.
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 10 2010,21:42

< Ah Joe, > always quick with a "no it isn't" but always so far away from a "this is it explanation".



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
R Bill:
Example: when we observe a man going over Niagara Falls in a barrel we inevitably wonder whether that the behavior is attributable to a desire for thrills, or a want of fame, or a wish for death, etc., coupled with the belief that such an action will bring that thrills, fame, or death. Were you to ask "why did he go over the falls," you would not be satisfied by "because the current pushed and gravity pulled the barrel over."

I don't wonder any of that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Alright, Joe.  Tell us what you wonder when you see a man going over Niagra Falls in a barrel.  Be specific.  This is important.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Nov. 11 2010,02:50

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 11 2010,03:35)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 10 2010,11:21)
Joe G:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And my back problems are most likely due to jumping out of perfectly good airplanes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oooohhh!!! I can take him on that one anytime. I'm a former paratrooper and currently a skydiving instructor.

Joe, let's talk about skidiving. No googling allowed!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


First he said he hurt his knee while being a fighting hero in Iraq, then it was his back that was hurt in combat there, now he says his back was hurt from skydiving.

Joe is living proof of the adage 'a liar need a good memory' to keep his stories straight.

Do we have any pilots here?  Joe also claimed to be a pilot qualified to fly multi-engine aircraft.  That would be interesting to quiz him on.  I wonder how he passes the FAA medical requirements with all of his debilitating war injuries?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He also said that he hurt himself as a military contractor in Iraq.
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 11 2010,06:20

Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 11 2010,08:50)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 11 2010,03:35)
 
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 10 2010,11:21)
Joe G:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And my back problems are most likely due to jumping out of perfectly good airplanes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oooohhh!!! I can take him on that one anytime. I'm a former paratrooper and currently a skydiving instructor.

Joe, let's talk about skidiving. No googling allowed!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


First he said he hurt his knee while being a fighting hero in Iraq, then it was his back that was hurt in combat there, now he says his back was hurt from skydiving.

Joe is living proof of the adage 'a liar need a good memory' to keep his stories straight.

Do we have any pilots here?  Joe also claimed to be a pilot qualified to fly multi-engine aircraft.  That would be interesting to quiz him on.  I wonder how he passes the FAA medical requirements with all of his debilitating war injuries?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He also said that he hurt himself as a military contractor in Iraq.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait a second. Are you all implying that Joey might not be telling the complete truth about himself and may in fact be some basement dwelling 14 year old fuckknuckle?

Oh my lack of god! That is shocking. Shocking I tell you.

Anyway, as for skydiving, I met that Schrodinger's Dog once, he parachuted into the pub. That was impressive. He is also not French and doesn't like heavy metal at all. He's German, likes strange techno and has no beard. It's all been a terrible facade to disguise the fact that he's Hitler. Or something.

Look, I can't be expected to make all this stuff up every time you know? Give a bloke a break.

Louis

ETA: The truth: Joe hurt himself inside a military contractor's vehicle. Teach Joey not to wait for the exhaust pipe to cool down before inserting his peepee.
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 11 2010,10:40

Remember to not empty the spam folder, Joey.  You promised to keep all of my comments to prove that I don't know what I'm talking about.  After your stellar track record so far, I wouldn't want you to be caught in a lie at the 11th hour.

< Are you fibbing, Joey? >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 11 2010,11:33

Oh this is going to be good:

< https://www.blogger.com/comment....4113044 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well we have bees that have figured out the traveling salesman dilemma. Something humans have not done.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 11 2010,11:47

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 11 2010,11:33)
Oh this is going to be good:

< https://www.blogger.com/comment....4113044 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well we have bees that have figured out the traveling salesman dilemma. Something humans have not done.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It appears time travelling ace-spaliens have already written my response for me:

< http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010....4967092 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We're talking about 4 flowers here. What kind of computer would take days to compute the optimal route for 4 flowers? An abacus operated by Joe G perhaps.

Did you read the original AmNat paper, Cornelius?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It sucks to be Joe.
Posted by: Wolfhound on Nov. 11 2010,12:35

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,14:12)
To wolfhound-

My most humble apologies for the way I have responded to you. I thought it was funny that the only evo to step up and want to mix it up with me was a girl. So I wanted to see if there were any men there that would step up once you were offended/ insulted by me. No one did.

BTW I am a sexist and I am also a lesbian trapped in a man's body- talk about confusion.... LoL!!!

But again my bad, you the girl, good luck in life...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Silly man!  While I appreciate the apology, it's not required nor is it warranted.  I'm all girl but I do play with the Big Boys.  The lads here understand this and a few of them actually know me personally so understood that there was no white knighting necessary.  It's one of the many things that I appreciate about the guys.

As the former fiance of a former man who was, indeed, a "lesbian trapped in a man's body", I don't find that amusing.  Seriously.  I will likely require therapy at some point in the future.  :angry:
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Nov. 11 2010,16:57

Wolfhound, may I offer you the loan of a Cattleprod +1 +3 vs Annoyances?  Mine runs off of a car battery...

The MadPanda, FCD

:D  :p
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 11 2010,18:16

I dare thee not to giggle:


< clicky! >

Is a>u a beneficial mutation? The i>o in my first sentence was!
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 12 2010,08:28

I'm so depressed.  I really want to learn the secret maths that only JoeG and Dembski know to calculate CSI or  CSU or whatever it is.  I'm sure it will lead me to fame and fortune.

But JoeG runs away everytime I ask him.

I'm very sad.*



* As I type this my wife is rolling her eyes and throwing the remains of breakfast at me.
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 12 2010,08:52

CSI=MSU
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 17 2010,16:06

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 10 2010,12:35)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 10 2010,11:21)
Joe G:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And my back problems are most likely due to jumping out of perfectly good airplanes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oooohhh!!! I can take him on that one anytime. I'm a former paratrooper and currently a skydiving instructor.

Joe, let's talk about skidiving. No googling allowed!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


First he said he hurt his knee while being a fighting hero in Iraq, then it was his back that was hurt in combat there, now he says his back was hurt from skydiving.

Joe is living proof of the adage 'a liar need a good memory' to keep his stories straight.

Do we have any pilots here?  Joe also claimed to be a pilot qualified to fly multi-engine aircraft.  That would be interesting to quiz him on.  I wonder how he passes the FAA medical requirements with all of his debilitating war injuries?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1- I never said I hurt my knee while being a fighting hero in Iraq- never- you are a liar.

2- I never said I hurt my back in combat there- never- you are a liar


Occam's Afterbirth must be getting desperate.

Is tis the best you assholes have? To lie and act like compete morons and gossipy old maids?

What's that? It's not an act?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 17 2010,16:10

Set the record straight, Joe! You're still Muslim, right?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 17 2010,16:39

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 17 2010,16:06)
1- I never said I hurt my knee while being a fighting hero in Iraq- never- you are a liar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And you, sir, are a dissembler:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Today I was searching the internet and came across a post by Occam's Afterbirth, saying that I lied about Iraq.

Occam's Afterbirth said I said I was wouded but that I really just hurt my back lifting the wrong way.

Spoken like a true piece of shit loser.

But anyway I did not hurt my back in Iraq.

I blew out my right knee when our position came under attack and I was getting clear of that action (March 2004).

I was not cut nor penetrated by any bullets nor shrapnel. My flack jacket took a few hits of shrapnel and debris but nothing got through to me.

This action occurred near Balad, Iraq.

Now to get to Balad from Baghdad International Airport, we did something that no military personnel would- we took an unarmored SUV convoy from the airport down RPG/ IED (rocket propelled grenade/ improvised explosive device) ally- the most dangerous road in the world- to Camp Victory to get our orders.

From there we traveled in that same convoy north to Balad.

We were stopped twice by IEDs.

While in Iraq I went on patrols with the Army. Ya see my job there was to train them in the use and maintenance of our equipment- explosive trace detectors- which were used to find people who messed with explosives.

The funny part is Occam's Afterbirth calls me a chicken-shit when it remains anonymous!

An anonymous asshole loser liar calling me a chickenshit!

That just makes me feel like a hero all over again...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2009....ht.html >
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Nov. 17 2010,16:47

Amazing! Joe G caught in a lie!

In similar news, the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.

Yawn.
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 17 2010,17:24

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 17 2010,22:06)
[SNIP]

Is tis the best you assholes have?

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope. It's just fun to yank your chain. Don't ever make the mistake that anyone takes you seriously.

Well limited fun. To be honest it's getting exceptionally dull. But hey, it's something to do.

Louis
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 17 2010,17:35

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 17 2010,17:24)
To be honest it's getting exceptionally dull.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


True dat. Joe's down to repeating the same three or four sentences now.

FFS Joe, give it up. Open your mind just a little. Not too much mind, else it'll fall out!

Ba-doom-tish!

Joe said
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ummm that is done within the framework of science. Also the only framework that explains overlapping genes, alternative (gene) splicing, transcription and translation with their proof-reading and error-correction, is ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And the funny thing is if you goggle "overlapping genes" there's page upon page of IDC material about how overlapping genes prove all sorts of things.

Yet it boils down to "overlapping genes - how clever is that, the designer of all that must have been real genius as I can't think how you'd even start to do that" and that's hardly an "explanation" is it Joe? Try googling it yourself Joe, find me the best "explanation" that ID has for overlapping genes you can and we'll explore it. All together, here. Holding hands.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 17 2010,17:57

I beg to differ. IR is a hotbead of ID theory. Telic thoughts have sown up the 'thought experiment space' but Joe is the right up there with UD when it comes to being upset with evolution. And as I asked Joe:

< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....st.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you think Dembski is reading this going "Yes! Design IS a mechanism" or - "OF COURSE! CSI is teh number of letters in a word!" ?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



..because you know he is.. ???
Posted by: phhht on Nov. 17 2010,18:03

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 17 2010,16:06)
Is t[h]is the best you assholes have?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Welcome back, crotch crab.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 17 2010,18:39

Hey Joe:  

One: I want a mathematical description of CSI, CSU, IC, whatever.  Keep in mind that I sit next to 8 mathematicians (3 with masters and 1 with a PhD (and another who's about to graduate with a PhD).  I can also get 3 people with PhDs in statistical analysis.  So don't worry your little head about the math.  I can take it.  If I can't I can get help.

Two:  Where's your answer to this:

Ask me a question about real science (not what you THINK (if that's even possible) and I'll provide you with so many citations, your pathetic little 486-66 will asplode.

hmmm... let me go ahead and start.

Evolution has been observed taking place in real world living organisms and documented doing so in peer reviewed scientific papers. From the literature on nylonase alone, we have this collection of scientific papers:

A New Nylon Oligomer Degradation Gene (nylC) On Plasmid pOAD2 From A Flavobacterium sp. by Seiji Negoro, Shinji Kakudo, Itaru Urabe, and Hirosuke Okadam, Journal of Bacteriology, 174(12): 7948-7953 (December 1992)

A Plasmid Encoding Enzymes For Nylon Oligomer Degradation: Nucleotide Sequence And Analysis Of pOAD2 by Ko Kato, Kinya Ohtsuki, Yuji Koda, Tohru Maekawa, Tetsuya Yomo, Seiji Negoro and Itaru Urabe, Microbiology, 141: 2585-2590 (1995)

Biodegradation Of Nylon Oligomers by Seiji Negoro, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 54: 461-466 (26th May 2000)

Birth Of A Unique Enzyme From An Alternative Reading Frame Of The Pre-eEisted, Internally Repetitious Coding Sequence by Susumu Ohno, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 81: 2421-2425 (April 1984)

DNA-DNA Hybridization Analysis Of Nylon Oligomer-Degradative Plasmid pOAD2: Identification Of The DNA Region Analogous To The Nylon Oligomer Degradation Gene by Seiji Negoro, Shunichi Nakamura and Hirosuke Okada, Journal of Bacteriology, 158(2): 419-424 (May 1984)

Emergence Of Nylon Oligomer Degradation Enzymes In Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO Through Experimental Evolution by Irfan J. Prijambada, Seiji Negoro, Tetsuya Yomo and Itaru Urabe, Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022 (May 1995)

Insertion Sequence IS6100 On Plasmid pOAD2, Which Degrades Nylon Oligomers by Ko Kato, Kinya Ohtsuki, Hiroyuki Mitsuda, Tetsuya Yomo, Seiji Negoro and Itaru Urabe, Journal of Bacteriology, 176(4): 1197-1200 (February 1994)

No Stop Codons In The Antisense Strands Of The Genes For Nylon Oligomer Degradation by Tetsuya Yomo, Itaru Urabe and Hirosuke Okada, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 89: 3780-3784 (May 1992)

Nylon Oligomer Degradation Gene, nylC, On Plasmid pOAD2 From A Flavobacterium Strain Encodes Endo-Type 6-Aminohexanoate Oligomer Hydrolase: Purification And Characterisation Of The nylC Product by Shinji Kakudo, Seiji Negoro, Itaru Urabe and Hirosuke Okada, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 59(11): 3978-3980 (November 1993)

Plasmid-Determined Enzymatic Degradation Of Nylon Oligomers by Seiji Negoro, Tomoyasu Taniguchi, Masaharu Kanaoka, Hiroyuki Kimura and Hirosuke Okada, Journal of Bacteriology, 155(1): 22-31 (July 1983)

The nylonase enzyme did not appear in these bacteria until the 1980s. Indeed, Nylon itself, and the oligomers associated with it that these bacteria metabolise, did not exist in the environment until 1935, which means that there was no reason for bacteria to possess a capability to metabolise these substances before that date. Moreover, the mechanism by which the nylonase gene came into being is well known and documented - it was the result of a frameshift mutation that generated a complete new gene that did not previously exist. This is merely one of many instances of evolution being observed taking place - the landmark paper in the field to date is this one:

Historical Contingency And Evolution Of A Key Innovation In An Experimental Population Of Escherichia coli by Zachary D. Blount, Christina Z. Borland and Richard E. Lenski, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 105(23): 7899-7906 (10th June 2008) [Full paper downloadable from here]

Quote

Blount, Borland & Lenski, 2008 wrote:

The role of historical contingency in evolution has been much debated, but rarely tested. Twelve initially identical populations of Escherichia coli were founded in 1988 to investigate this issue. They have since evolved in a glucose-limited medium that also contains citrate, which E. coli cannot use as a carbon source under oxic conditions. No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions of mutations. A citrate-using (Cit+) variant finally evolved in one population by 31,500 generations, causing an increase in population size and diversity. The long-delayed and unique evolution of this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely rare mutation. Alternately, it may involve an ordinary mutation, but one whose physical occurrence or phenotypic expression is contingent on prior mutations in that population. We tested these hypotheses in experiments that ‘‘replayed’’ evolution from different points in that population’s history. We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 × 1012 ancestral cells, nor among 9 × 1012 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations. However, we observed a significantly greater tendency for later clones to evolve Cit+, indicating that some potentiating mutation arose by 20,000 generations. This potentiating change increased the mutation rate to Cit+ but did not cause generalized hypermutability.
Thus, the evolution of this phenotype was contingent on the particular history of that population. More generally, we suggest that historical contingency is especially important when it facilitates the evolution of key innovations that are not easily evolved by gradual, cumulative selection.



Direct Experimental Tests Of Evolutionary Concepts

A Model For Divergent Allopatric Speciation Of Polyploid Pteridophytes Resulting From Silencing Of Duplicate-Gene Expression by Charles R.E. Werth and Michael D. Windham, American Naturalist, 137(4): 515-526 (April 1991) - DEVELOPMENT OF A MODEL TO MATCH OBSERVED SPECIATION IN NATURE

A Molecular Reexamination Of Diploid Hybrid Speciation Of Solanum raphanifolium by David M. Spooner, Kenneth. J. Sytsma and James F. Smith, Evolution, 45(3): 757-764 - DOCUMENTATION OF AN OBSERVED SPECIATION EVENT

Cavefish As A Model System In Evolutionary Developmental Biology by William R. Jeffrey, Developmental Biology, 231:, 1-12 (1 Mar 2001) - contains experimental tests of hypotheses about eye evolution

Chromosome Evolution, Phylogeny, And Speciation Of Rock Wallabies, by G. B. Sharman, R. L. Close and G. M. Maynes, Australian Journal of Zoology, 37(2-4): 351-363 (1991) - DOCUMENTATION OF OBSERVED SPECIATION IN NATURE

Crystal Structure Of An Ancient Protein: Evolution By Conformational Epistasis by Eric A. Ortlund, Jamie T. Bridgham, Matthew R. Redinbo and Joseph W. Thornton, Science, 317: 1544-1548 (14 September 2007) - refers to the reconstruction of ancient proteins from extinct animals by back-tracking along the molecular phylogenetic trees and demonstrating that the proteins in question WORK

Evidence For Rapid Speciation Following A Founder Event In The Laboratory by James R. Weinberg Victoria R. Starczak and Danielle Jörg, Evolution 46: 1214-1220 (15th January 1992) - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Evolutionary Theory And Process Of Active Speciation And Adaptive Radiation In Subterranean Mole Rats, Spalax ehrenbergi Superspecies, In Israel by E. Nevo, Evolutionary Biology, 25: 1-125 - DOCUMENTATION OF OBSERVED SPECIATION IN NATURE

Experimentally Created Incipient Species Of Drosophila by Theodosius Dobzhansky & Olga Pavlovsky, Nature 230: 289 - 292 (2nd April 1971) - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Founder-Flush Speciation On Drosophila pseudoobscura: A Large Scale Experiment by Agustí Galiana, Andrés Moya and Francisco J. Alaya, Evolution 47: 432-444 (1993) EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Genetics Of Natural Populations XII. Experimental Reproduction Of Some Of the Changes Caused by Natural Selection by Sewall Wright & Theodosius Dobzkansky, Genetics, 31(2): 125-156 (1946) - direct experimental tests of natural selection mechanisms

Hedgehog Signalling Controls Eye Degeneration In Blind Cavefish by Yoshiyuki Yamamoto, David W. Stock and William R. Jeffery, Nature, 431: 844-847 (14 Oct 2004) - direct experimental test of theories about eye evolution and the elucidation of the controlling genes involved

Initial Sequencing Of The Chimpanzee Genome And Comparison With The Human Genome, The Chimpanzee Genome Sequencing Consortium (see paper for full list of 68 authors), Nature, 437: 69-87 (1 September 2005) - direct sequencing of the chimpanzee genome and direct comparison of this genome with the previously sequenced human genome, whereby the scientists discovered that fully twenty-nine percent of the orthologous proteins of humans and chimpanzees are IDENTICAL

Origin Of The Superflock Of Cichlid Fishes From Lake Victoria, East Africa by Erik Verheyen, Walter Salzburger, Jos Snoeks and Axel Meyer, Science, 300: 325-329 (11 April 2003) - direct experimental determination of the molecular phylogeny of the Lake Victoria Superflock, including IDENTIFYING THE COMMON ANCESTOR OF THE 350+ SPECIES IN QUESTION and NAMING THAT ANCESTOR as Haplochromis gracilior

Phagotrophy By A Flagellate Selects For Colonial Prey: A Possible Origin Of Multicellularity by Martin.E. Boraas, Dianne.B. Seale and Joseph .E. Boxhorn, Evolutionary Ecology 12(2): 153-164 (February 1998 ) - direct experimental test of hypotheses about the origins of multicellularity

Pollen-Mediated Introgression And Hybrid Speciation In Louisiana Irises by Michael L. Arnold, Cindy M. Buckner and Jonathan J. Robinson, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 88(4): 1398-1402 (February 1991) - OBSERVATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN NATURE

Protein Engineering Of Hydrogenase 3 To Enhance Hydrogen Production by Toshinari. Maeda, Viviana. Sanchez-Torres and Thomas. K. Wood, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 79(1): 77-86 (May 2008) - DIRECT EXPERIMENTAL APPLICATION OF EVOLUTION IN THE LABORATORY TO PRODUCE A NEW BIOTECHNOLOGY PRODUCT

Resurrecting Ancient Genes: Experimental Analysis Of Extinct Molecules by Joseph W. Thornton, Nature Reviews: Genetics, 5: 366-375 (5 May 2004) - direct experimental reconstruction in the laboratory of ancient proteins from extinct animals

Sexual Isolation Caused By Selection For Positive And Negative Phototaxis And Geotaxis In Drosophila pseudoobscura by E. del Solar, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 56: 484-487 (1966) - direct experimental test of selection mechanisms and their implications for speciation

Speciation By Hybridisation In Heliconius Butterflies by Jesús Mavárez, Camilo A. Salazar, Eldredge Bermingham, Christian Salcedo, Chris D. Jiggins and Mauricio Linares, Nature, 441: 868-871 (15th June 2006) - DETERMINATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN NATURE, FOLLOWED BY LABOARTORY REPRODUCTION OF THAT SPECIATION EVENT, AND CONFIRMATION THAT THE LABORATORY INDIVIDUALS ARE INTERFERTILE WITH THE WILD TYPE INDIVIDUALS

Speciation By Hybridization In Phasmids And Other Insects By Luciano Bullini and Guiseppe Nascetti, Canadian Journal of Zoology 68(8): 1747-1760 (1990) - OBSERVATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN NATURE

The Gibbons Speciation Mechanism by S. Ramadevon and M. A. B. Deaken, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 145(4): 447-456 (1991) - DEVELOPMENT OF A MODEL ACCOUNTING FOR OBSERVED INSTANCES OF SPECIATION

The Master Control Gene For Morphogenesis And Evolution Of The Eye by Walter J. Gehrig, Genes to Cells, 1: 11-15, 1996 - direct experimental test of hypotheses concerning eye evolution including the elucidation of the connection between the Pax6 gene and eye morphogenesis, and the experimental manipulation of that gene to control eye development

The Past As The Key To The Present: Resurrection Of Ancient Proteins From Eosinophils by Steven A. Benner, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA., 99(8): 4760-4761 (16 April 2002) - direct experimental reconstruction of ancient proteins from extinct animals

This list is by no means complete, because over eighteen thousand critically robust peer reviewed papers were published in evolutionary biology in 2007 alone. The number of papers published in the subject since Darwin first published The Origin of Species probably exceeds a million or so, if someone were ever to perform the requisite accounting.



As I recall, you have an issue with abiogensis.  First, conflating evolutionary theory with abiogenesis is not only wrong, not only scientifically invalid, but why, as a common creationist fabrication, it too is regarded here with scorn and derision.

As for self replicating systems, if you think scientists have no clue about the formation of these, the following scientific papers will disabuse you of that farcical notion:

A Self-Replicating Ligase Ribozyme by Natasha Paul & Gerald F. Joyce, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 99(20): 12733-12740 (1st October 2002)

A Self-Replicating System by T. Tjivuka, P. Ballester and J. Rebek Jr, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 112: 1249-1250 (1990)

Catalysis In Prebiotic Chemistry: Application To The Synthesis Of RNA Oligomers by James P. Ferris, Prakash C. Joshi, K-J Wang, S. Miyakawa and W. Huang, Advances in Space Research, 33: 100-105 (2004)

Cations As Mediators Of The Adsorption Of Nucleic Acids On Clay Surfaces In Prebiotic Environments by Marco Franchi, James P. Ferris and Enzo Gallori, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 33: 1-16 (2003)

Darwinian Evolution On A Chip by Brian M. Paegel and Gerald F. Joyce, Public Library of Science Biology, 6(4): e85 (April 2008)

Emergence Of A Replicating Species From An In Vitro RNA Evolution Reaction by Ronald R. Breaker and Gerald F. Joyce, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 91: 6093-6097 (June 1994)

Information Transfer From Peptide Nucleic Acids To RNA By Template-Directed Syntheses by Jürgen G. Schmidt, Peter E. Nielsen and Leslie E. Orgel, Nucleic Acids Research, 25(23): 4794-4802 (1997)

Ligation Of The Hairpin Ribozyme In cis Induced By Freezing And Dehydration by Sergei A. Kazakov, Svetlana V. Balatskaya and Brian H. Johnston, The RNA Journal, 12: 446-456 (2006)

Mineral Catalysis And Prebiotic Synthesis: Montmorillonite-Catalysed Formation Of RNA by James P. Ferris, Elements, 1: 145-149 (June 2005)

Montmorillonite Catalysis Of 30-50 Mer Oligonucleotides: Laboratory Demonstration Of Potential Steps In The Origin Of The RNA World by James P. Ferris, Origins of Life and Evolution of the biosphere, 32: 311-332 (2002)

Montmorillonite Catalysis Of RNA Oligomer Formation In Aqueous Solution: A Model For The Prebiotic Formation Of RNA by James P. Ferris and Gözen Ertem, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 115: 12270-12275 (1993)

Nucelotide Synthetase Ribozymes May Have Emerged First In The RNA World by Wentao Ma, Chunwu Yu, Wentao Zhang and Jiming Hu, The RNA Journal, 13: 2012-2019, 18th September 2007

Prebiotic Amino Acids As Asymmetric Catalysts by Sandra Pizzarello and Arthur L. Weber, Science, 303: 1151 (20 February 2004)

Prebiotic Chemistry And The Origin Of The RNA World by Leslie E. Orgel, Critical Reviews in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 39: 99-123 (2004)

Prebiotic Synthesis On Minerals: Bridging The Prebiotic And RNA Worlds by James P. Ferris, Biological Bulletin, 196: 311-314 (June 1999)

Ribozymes: Building The RNA World by Gerald F. Joyce, Current Biology, 6(8): 965-967, 1996

RNA-Catalysed Nucleotide Synthesis by Peter J. Unrau and David P. Bartel, Nature, 395: 260-263 (17th September 1998)

RNA-Catalyzed RNA Polymerization: Accurate and General RNA-Templated Primer Extension by Wendy K. Johnston, Peter J. Unrau, Michael S. Lawrence, Margaret E. Glasner and David P. Bartel, Science, 292: 1319-1325, 18th May 2001

RNA-Directed Amino Acid Homochirality by J. Martyn Bailey, FASEB Journal (Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology), 12: 503-507 (1998)

RNA Evolution And The Origin Of Life by Gerald F. Joyce, Nature, 338: 217-224 (16th March 1989)

Self Replicating Systems by Volker Patzke and Günter von Kiedrowski, ARKIVOC 5: 293-310, 2007

Self-Organising Biochemical Cycles by Leslie E. Orgel, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 97(23): 12503-12507 (7th November 2000)

Self-Sustained Replication Of An RNA Enzyme by Tracey A. Lincoln and Gerald F. Joyce, ScienceExpress, DOI: 10.1126/science.1167856 (8th January 2009)

Sequence- And Regio-Selectivity In The Montmorillonite-Catalysed Synthesis Of RNA by Gözen Ertem and James P. Ferris, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 30: 411-422 (2000)

Synthesis Of 35-40 Mers Of RNA Oligomers From Unblocked Monomers. A Simple Approach To The RNA World by Wenhua Huang and James P. Ferris, Chemical Communications of the Royal Society of Chemistry, 1458-1459 (2003)

Synthesis Of Long Prebiotic Oligomers On Mineral Surfaces by James P. Ferris, Aubrey R. Hill Jr, Rihe Liu and Leslie E. Orgel, Nature, 381: 59-61 (2nd May 1996)

The Antiquity Of RNA-Based Evolution by Gerald F. Joyce, Nature, 418: 214-221, 11th July 2002

The Case For An Ancestral Genetic System Involving Simple Analogues Of The Nucleotides by Gerald F. Joyce, Alan W. Schwartz, Stanley L. Miller and Leslie E. Orgel, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 84: 4398-4402 (July 1987)

The Descent of Polymerisation by Matthew Levy and Andrew D. Ellington, Nature Structural Biology, 8(7): 580-582, July 2001

The Origin And Early Evolution Of Life: Prebiotic Chemistry, The Pre-RNA World, And Time by Antonio Laczano and Stanley R. Miller, Cell, 85: 793-798 (14th June 1996)

The Origin Of Replicators And Reproducers by Eörs Szathmáry, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 361: 1689-1702 (11th September 2006)

The Roads To And From The RNA World[/i] by Jason P. Dworkin, Antonio Lazcano and Stanley L. Miller, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 222: 127-134 (2003)

Transcription And Translation In An RNA World by William R. Taylor, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 361: 1689-1702 (11th September 2006)

That's thirty-three scientific papers covering the emergence of self-replicating systems and their behaviour in a prebiotic environment. If you think this is a problem for scientists, then you obviously never paid attention in proper science classes.

Finally, I'll ask you, what is the shortest RNA chain that can catalyze metabolic and/or cellular functions.  Until you answer that... go away.

Until you have read everyone of the papers I present and explained with references to other peer-reviewed work why the paper is wrong, you have no argument.  You are just a sad little man with delusions of adequacy.
BTW: Remember, the challenge is SCIENTIFIC questions... not questions that you THINK are scientific.

Speaking, of which, why do you keep challenging us, when you can't man up and answer one simple question about ID?

Fuck off, Chicken Little.
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 17 2010,19:21

In short:  
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 17 2010,16:39)
"I got a royal flush in spades, GI Joe. Whadda *you* got?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nice.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 17 2010,19:24

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 17 2010,19:21)
In short:  
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 17 2010,16:39)
"I got a royal flush in spades, GI Joe. Whadda *you* got?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Funny part... he called my all in with Jack high.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 17 2010,20:46

Joe is just a little bent.

Vis ID, sayeth RB:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ultimately all the science with bearing on these questions is conducted within the framework of evolutionary biology, as ID offers no testable entailments and contributes nothing to ongoing research. This reflects the emptiness of ID's proposed mechanism, a reality reflected in the fact that no research, including even "design detection," is being conducted from within the framework of ID. A theoretical viewpoint that is inherently unable to guidance to empirical research and is not pursued even by its own advocates is not a scientific viewpoint.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe G's quotemine:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Reciprocating Bill is nailing the coffin shut on the theory of evolution. It is:

'A theoretical viewpoint that is inherently unable to guidance to empirical research and is not pursued even by its own advocates is not a scientific viewpoint.'

That is always best coming from an evolutionist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Diagnosis? The mental equivalent of Peyronie's disease.
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 17 2010,21:16

Ho hum.

GI Joe still hasn't progressed past 3rd grade "I'm rubber you're glue" taunting and veiled schoolyard threats.

Bonehead.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 17 2010,21:30

Best evidence that God doesn't exist and ID doesn't work... their support team is AWFUL.

I mean really, if you were the omnipotent creator of the entire freaking universe... surely you could find some decent help out of the 7 billion people on this planet.

If ID worked, surely someone with actual knowledge, training, and a brain would be involved in it (other than milking the rubes (like Joe and IBIG) for their cash.

I just imagine poor Joe, sitting in his momma's basement with a cheap bottle of wine (with a screw top) trying to save up for Dembski's next book and praying that his momma will let him borrow enough cash for a Greyhound ticket to get to Plano tomorrow.
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 17 2010,23:01

Come back Joe.  Tell us again how you didn't hurt your knee in combat.  Remember to cite yourself saying you hurt yourself in combat--that's a winning ticket.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Nov. 17 2010,23:05

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 17 2010,16:39)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 17 2010,16:06)
1- I never said I hurt my knee while being a fighting hero in Iraq- never- you are a liar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And you, sir, are a dissembler:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Today I was searching the internet and came across a post by Occam's Afterbirth, saying that I lied about Iraq.

Occam's Afterbirth said I said I was wouded but that I really just hurt my back lifting the wrong way.

Spoken like a true piece of shit loser.

But anyway I did not hurt my back in Iraq.

I blew out my right knee when our position came under attack and I was getting clear of that action (March 2004).

I was not cut nor penetrated by any bullets nor shrapnel. My flack jacket took a few hits of shrapnel and debris but nothing got through to me.

This action occurred near Balad, Iraq.

Now to get to Balad from Baghdad International Airport, we did something that no military personnel would- we took an unarmored SUV convoy from the airport down RPG/ IED (rocket propelled grenade/ improvised explosive device) ally- the most dangerous road in the world- to Camp Victory to get our orders.

From there we traveled in that same convoy north to Balad.

We were stopped twice by IEDs.

While in Iraq I went on patrols with the Army. Ya see my job there was to train them in the use and maintenance of our equipment- explosive trace detectors- which were used to find people who messed with explosives.

The funny part is Occam's Afterbirth calls me a chicken-shit when it remains anonymous!

An anonymous asshole loser liar calling me a chickenshit!

That just makes me feel like a hero all over again...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2009....ht.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, I have to side with Joe on this one.  If you read carefully, he didn't say he hurt his knee fighting in Iraq.  He said that he hurt his knee running away in Iraq.  So, there is a consistency there.

Now, why running away like a little girl makes him feel like a hero is a bit mystifying. But, I don't practice psychology with a license, so I'll just have to let that go.
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 18 2010,06:15

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 17 2010,16:39)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 17 2010,16:06)
1- I never said I hurt my knee while being a fighting hero in Iraq- never- you are a liar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And you, sir, are a dissembler:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Today I was searching the internet and came across a post by Occam's Afterbirth, saying that I lied about Iraq.

Occam's Afterbirth said I said I was wouded but that I really just hurt my back lifting the wrong way.

Spoken like a true piece of shit loser.

But anyway I did not hurt my back in Iraq.

I blew out my right knee when our position came under attack and I was getting clear of that action (March 2004).

I was not cut nor penetrated by any bullets nor shrapnel. My flack jacket took a few hits of shrapnel and debris but nothing got through to me.

This action occurred near Balad, Iraq.

Now to get to Balad from Baghdad International Airport, we did something that no military personnel would- we took an unarmored SUV convoy from the airport down RPG/ IED (rocket propelled grenade/ improvised explosive device) ally- the most dangerous road in the world- to Camp Victory to get our orders.

From there we traveled in that same convoy north to Balad.

We were stopped twice by IEDs.

While in Iraq I went on patrols with the Army. Ya see my job there was to train them in the use and maintenance of our equipment- explosive trace detectors- which were used to find people who messed with explosives.

The funny part is Occam's Afterbirth calls me a chicken-shit when it remains anonymous!

An anonymous asshole loser liar calling me a chickenshit!

That just makes me feel like a hero all over again...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2009....ht.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ummm I wasn't fighting.

IOW you are an imbecile.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 18 2010,06:32

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 18 2010,06:15)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 17 2010,16:39)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 17 2010,16:06)
1- I never said I hurt my knee while being a fighting hero in Iraq- never- you are a liar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And you, sir, are a dissembler:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Today I was searching the internet and came across a post by Occam's Afterbirth, saying that I lied about Iraq.

Occam's Afterbirth said I said I was wouded but that I really just hurt my back lifting the wrong way.

Spoken like a true piece of shit loser.

But anyway I did not hurt my back in Iraq.

I blew out my right knee when our position came under attack and I was getting clear of that action (March 2004).

I was not cut nor penetrated by any bullets nor shrapnel. My flack jacket took a few hits of shrapnel and debris but nothing got through to me.

This action occurred near Balad, Iraq.

Now to get to Balad from Baghdad International Airport, we did something that no military personnel would- we took an unarmored SUV convoy from the airport down RPG/ IED (rocket propelled grenade/ improvised explosive device) ally- the most dangerous road in the world- to Camp Victory to get our orders.

From there we traveled in that same convoy north to Balad.

We were stopped twice by IEDs.

While in Iraq I went on patrols with the Army. Ya see my job there was to train them in the use and maintenance of our equipment- explosive trace detectors- which were used to find people who messed with explosives.

The funny part is Occam's Afterbirth calls me a chicken-shit when it remains anonymous!

An anonymous asshole loser liar calling me a chickenshit!

That just makes me feel like a hero all over again...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2009....ht.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ummm I wasn't fighting.

IOW you are an imbecile.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That just makes me feel like a hero all over again...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Therefore you must have felt like a hero the first time.


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ummm I wasn't fighting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Irrelevant. But nice try.
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 18 2010,06:38

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 18 2010,03:16)
Ho hum.

GI Joe still hasn't progressed past 3rd grade "I'm rubber you're glue" taunting and veiled schoolyard threats.

Bonehead.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hence why I flatly refuse to take him even remotely seriously.

Louis
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 18 2010,08:32

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 18 2010,06:15)
Ummm I wasn't fighting.

IOW you are an imbecile.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is what you choose to respond to?  

I've asked several questions about ID and the math and provided a list of research articles that I would be perfectly willing to discuss with you.

OK, well, you know where to find me if you want to man up and show some courage.  Defend your beliefs man.
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 18 2010,10:06

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 17 2010,21:30)
...with a cheap bottle of wine (with a screw top)...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not to completely dissolve your imagery here, Cybertank, < but... >
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 18 2010,10:09

Yeah, I know (sigh). But it's still the cliche, at least for now.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Nov. 18 2010,13:14

Ooo, ooo, do I get to go all Umberto Eco on him?  Can I?  Can I?  Can I?

Does anyone know what Joey's point is, other than he thinks he can cast aspersions...pardonnez-moi, assertions upon the waters, never provide the wondrous and copious evidence behind them that would surely revolutionize our understanding, and not be mocked for it?  Does he actually have a point?  Is there anything behind the snark?

His choice of avatar may be most apt.  It brings to mind a rather interesting polemic entitled (IIRC) The Captain America Complex, which dealt with zeal in American foreign policy.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Hermagoras on Nov. 18 2010,15:40

Visited the JoeGblog today.  It's nice to know that Joe hasn't gotten any more reasonable, civil, or decent since I last read it.  He's consistently hyper-mad and kind of drunk-stupid.  

JoeG is your brain on Four Loco.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 18 2010,18:48

Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 18 2010,16:40)
Visited the JoeGblog today.  It's nice to know that Joe hasn't gotten any more reasonable, civil, or decent since I last read it.  He's consistently hyper-mad and kind of drunk-stupid.  

JoeG is your brain on Four Loco.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Upon interacting with it for awhile, I've concluded that "Joe G" is some kind of mindless bot. But strictly in ROM.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 19 2010,05:33

Joe:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If I am involved in a Coirt case about ID vs the ToE your experts are going to have to answer all those questions you assholes have been avoiding.

And the best part is no one will be able to pin any religious motivation on me.

For me it is just a matter of time- once my kid gets to HS I will make sure this goes to Court.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link >
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 19 2010,06:39

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 19 2010,11:33)
Joe:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If I am involved in a Coirt case about ID vs the ToE your experts are going to have to answer all those questions you assholes have been avoiding.

And the best part is no one will be able to pin any religious motivation on me.

For me it is just a matter of time- once my kid gets to HS I will make sure this goes to Court.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Surely having kids of his own would require him to, you know, have sex with a lady*.

I find this....unlikely.

And yes, that was the most diplomatic word I could find.

Louis

* Sperm banks are just not going to accept sperm from the likes of JoeJoe. Not when there are perfectly good HIV infected tramps  and week old corpses about. No agency would let him adopt or foster and he lacks the requisite skills to kidnap. I'm thinking the only "kid" Joey could produce would be a turnip he'd badly drawn a face on. No one will be fooled by his attempts at "ventrilloquism" either.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 19 2010,07:02

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 19 2010,05:33)
Joe:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If I am involved in a Coirt case about ID vs the ToE your experts are going to have to answer all those questions you assholes have been avoiding.

And the best part is no one will be able to pin any religious motivation on me.

For me it is just a matter of time- once my kid gets to HS I will make sure this goes to Court.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I didn't know goats went to high school
Posted by: rossum on Nov. 19 2010,07:28

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 19 2010,05:33)
Joe:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If I am involved in a Coirt case about ID vs the ToE your experts are going to have to answer all those questions you assholes have been avoiding.

And the best part is no one will be able to pin any religious motivation on me.

For me it is just a matter of time- once my kid gets to HS I will make sure this goes to Court.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Has JoeG been reading about the < Vise Strategy >?

You might want to study that a bit more first Joe.  Possibly some problems down the line.

rossum
Posted by: olegt on Nov. 19 2010,09:46

Quote (rossum @ Nov. 19 2010,07:28)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 19 2010,05:33)
Joe:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If I am involved in a Coirt case about ID vs the ToE your experts are going to have to answer all those questions you assholes have been avoiding.

And the best part is no one will be able to pin any religious motivation on me.

For me it is just a matter of time- once my kid gets to HS I will make sure this goes to Court.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Has JoeG been reading about the < Vise Strategy >?

You might want to study that a bit more first Joe.  Possibly some problems down the line.

rossum
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's above Joe's pay grade. He can cut and paste, but he can't think things through.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 19 2010,10:11

If he went to court, I suspect the DI would issue "not affiliated" press releases *very* quickly..
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 19 2010,10:13



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And BTW I hope you are satisfied with getting one round of posts a day (on this blog anyway) and you just used it for today...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Joe, you don't get to control what I say and when I say it.

I won't be posting again on your blog.
Posted by: olegt on Nov. 19 2010,10:24

Yeah, it actually would be a good idea to stop posting on Joe's blog. He should get out more often.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 19 2010,10:26

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 19 2010,10:13)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And BTW I hope you are satisfied with getting one round of posts a day (on this blog anyway) and you just used it for today...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Joe, you don't get to control what I say and when I say it.

I won't be posting again on your blog.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, I'm done with him too. Back to being an echo chamber for you, Joey old chum. I'll discuss your IDiocy here with Blipey and O.M. More entertaining, better website with higher traffic, instant posting, no censorship.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 19 2010,11:13

Joe is currently struggly with design / good and bad design.

To critique a design we must know its function
To know its function we must know its purpose
Behind the purpose is a motivation
Which means ultimatley, we must know the designer.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 19 2010,14:25

Brand new tard!

< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....or.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Snowball Earth- Evotard Evidence for a Global Flood!
-
Snowball Earth is generally accepted to have ended about 650 million years ago.

And seeing that snow is water- according to evotards- then that means there is evidence for a global flood.

Any questions?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ah yes, the 'generally accepted' days of Noah 650 million years ago when it rained snowed got really cold for 40 days and 40 nights several million years.

edited.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 19 2010,14:39

Does that explain how penguins got to and from the Ark?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 19 2010,14:55

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 19 2010,14:25)
Brand new tard!

< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....or.html >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Snowball Earth- Evotard Evidence for a Global Flood!
-
Snowball Earth is generally accepted to have ended about 650 million years ago.

And seeing that snow is water- according to evotards- then that means there is evidence for a global flood.

Any questions?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ah yes, the 'generally accepted' days of Noah 650 million years ago when it rained snowed got really cold for 40 days and 40 nights several million years.

edited.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait... did Joe actually learn something?  Holy crap!!!

He really learned that snow and ice and hail are all water.  

Who says he's incapable of learning?  It only took, what, 25-30 years to learn that ice and water are the same thing.

Another 3-4 centuries and he may be able to handle that populations evolve and not individuals or that 4000 < 650,000,000.
Posted by: khan on Nov. 19 2010,14:58

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 19 2010,15:55)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 19 2010,14:25)
Brand new tard!

< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....or.html >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Snowball Earth- Evotard Evidence for a Global Flood!
-
Snowball Earth is generally accepted to have ended about 650 million years ago.

And seeing that snow is water- according to evotards- then that means there is evidence for a global flood.

Any questions?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ah yes, the 'generally accepted' days of Noah 650 million years ago when it rained snowed got really cold for 40 days and 40 nights several million years.

edited.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait... did Joe actually learn something?  Holy crap!!!

He really learned that snow and ice and hail are all water.  

Who says he's incapable of learning?  It only took, what, 25-30 years to learn that ice and water are the same thing.

Another 3-4 centuries and he may be able to handle that populations evolve and not individuals or that 4000 < 650,000,000.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was getting ready to post that.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 19 2010,15:05

Didn't he acknowledge that ice is frozen water?
Posted by: carlsonjok on Nov. 19 2010,15:55

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 19 2010,14:25)
Brand new tard!

< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....or.html >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Snowball Earth- Evotard Evidence for a Global Flood!
-
Snowball Earth is generally accepted to have ended about 650 million years ago.

And seeing that snow is water- according to evotards- then that means there is evidence for a global flood.

Any questions?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ah yes, the 'generally accepted' days of Noah 650 million years ago when it rained snowed got really cold for 40 days and 40 nights several million years.

edited.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What I don't get is if Joe is not religious, as he is quick to tell, why is he so invested in a global flood?
Posted by: didymos on Nov. 19 2010,18:41

Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 19 2010,13:55)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 19 2010,14:25)
Brand new tard!

< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....or.html >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Snowball Earth- Evotard Evidence for a Global Flood!
-
Snowball Earth is generally accepted to have ended about 650 million years ago.

And seeing that snow is water- according to evotards- then that means there is evidence for a global flood.

Any questions?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ah yes, the 'generally accepted' days of Noah 650 million years ago when it rained snowed got really cold for 40 days and 40 nights several million years.

edited.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What I don't get is if Joe is not religious, as he is quick to tell, why is he so invested in a global flood?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's also got a real thing for baraminology.  But, you know, he's no creationist. No siree!
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 19 2010,21:30

Double post, damn microsoft...rumble, rumble, rumble, mutiny, mutiny, mutiny...
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 19 2010,21:34

Wait, wait, wait.  There's no way that snow can be water, right Joe?  I mean, they don't even have any of the same letters!
Posted by: darvolution proponentsist on Nov. 19 2010,22:01

Quote (khan @ Nov. 19 2010,14:58)
     
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 19 2010,15:55)
       
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 19 2010,14:25)
Brand new tard!

< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....or.html >

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Snowball Earth- Evotard Evidence for a Global Flood!
-
Snowball Earth is generally accepted to have ended about 650 million years ago.

And seeing that snow is water- according to evotards - then that means there is evidence for a global flood.

Any questions?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ah yes, the 'generally accepted' days of Noah 650 million years ago when it rained snowed got really cold for 40 days and 40 nights several million years.

edited.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait... did Joe actually learn something?  Holy crap!!!

He really learned that snow and ice and hail are all water.  

Who says he's incapable of learning?  It only took, what, 25-30 years to learn that ice and water are the same thing.

Another 3-4 centuries and he may be able to handle that populations evolve and not individuals or that 4000 < 650,000,000.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was getting ready to post that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd have to disagree here, what he has said is that according to us evilutionists snow is water.

Captain Joe America of the United States of Jesus doesn't appear to have conceded this demonstrable fact.

You do own a refrigerator-freezer, do you not Joe ?

Let's try a simple logic problem. (IDist in a vise strategy)

The piece of equipment shown below has three possible outputs. Water\Ice\Crushed Snow



Joe, what is the singular input that is required for the three possible outputs ?

(Spoiler Alert !)


Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 19 2010,22:37

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 19 2010,04:39)
I'm thinking the only "kid" Joey could produce would be a turnip he'd badly drawn a face on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Wilson!! >
Posted by: darvolution proponentsist on Nov. 20 2010,01:40

* addendum for Joe

1) The piece of equipment depicted does not in fact perform alchemy.

2) The piece of equipment depicted does not in fact violate or even annoy the SLoT.

3) My 13yo niece, who should be in bed by now, is LOL at how thick you are.

4) She just asked me the question, which I now pose to you ... How many feet of snow would be required that (after melting) would equate to the amount of liquid water necessary to provide the flood conditions as depicted in the bible ?

5) Seriously Joe, my 13yo niece.
Posted by: Hermagoras on Nov. 20 2010,09:21

Quote (didymos @ Nov. 19 2010,18:41)
He's also got a real thing for baraminology.  But, you know, he's no creationist. No siree!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe he's referring to baraminology of a different kind.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 20 2010,09:37

Actually a good question.

Hey Joe, what's the specified complexity or CSI, or CSU-Miami or whatever of "ice" compared with "water" and "hail" and "snow"?

hmmm.... it appears water has more BFG than ice, which actually makes sense since a liquid is more random than a solid.

Incontrovertible proof of IDID*

Indecipherable Decision from Intelligent Doofus.
Posted by: Reed on Nov. 20 2010,20:23

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 20 2010,07:37)
Actually a good question.

Hey Joe, what's the specified complexity or CSI, or CSU-Miami or whatever of "ice" compared with "water" and "hail" and "snow"?

hmmm.... it appears water has more BFG than ice, which actually makes sense since a liquid is more random than a solid.

Incontrovertible proof of IDID*

Indecipherable Decision from Intelligent Doofus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And what does it mean that the situation is reversed in French ? Proof God teh duhsigner is an Anglo ?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 20 2010,20:33

Quote (Reed @ Nov. 20 2010,20:23)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 20 2010,07:37)
Actually a good question.

Hey Joe, what's the specified complexity or CSI, or CSU-Miami or whatever of "ice" compared with "water" and "hail" and "snow"?

hmmm.... it appears water has more BFG than ice, which actually makes sense since a liquid is more random than a solid.

Incontrovertible proof of IDID*

Indecipherable Decision from Intelligent Doofus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And what does it mean that the situation is reversed in French ? Proof God teh duhsigner is an Anglo ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If it's not King James English, then it's heresy!
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 20 2010,21:26

Joe misses his friends and < latches onto a sock-puppet for support. >

I feel all warm and fuzzy.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 20 2010,22:23

He's such a bellend. At least he's got 'Jim" to keep him company...in his head.
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 20 2010,22:56

For a guy who likes to use definitions--however inappropriately--as evidence, < he might try buying a dictionary. >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I didn't see any light, just the evidence, and that was back in the 70s. And the deeper I dig the more it is life all the way down, when it comes to biology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So after nearly 40 years of study, Joe has come to the conclusion that when it comes to the study of life, life is where it's at?  And he thinks we believe schools let him teach seminars....
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 20 2010,23:00

Quote (blipey @ Nov. 20 2010,22:56)
For a guy who likes to use definitions--however inappropriately--as evidence, < he might try buying a dictionary. >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I didn't see any light, just the evidence, and that was back in the 70s. And the deeper I dig the more it is life all the way down, when it comes to biology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So after nearly 40 years of study, Joe has come to the conclusion that when it comes to the study of life, life is where it's at?  And he thinks we believe schools let him teach seminars....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe he's just know figured out that Biology is the study of life.

Is that two things he's learned.  Dang, the dude is on a roll... or at least a biscuit.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Nov. 21 2010,16:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dang, the dude is on a roll... or at least a biscuit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Mais pas de croissant.  He'd insist on having a Freedom Bun instead.  (eyeroll)

When my Cub is old enough to worry about such matters, I shall definitely have to reference the Joey--any and all candidates for significant other must exceed him in reading comprehension and logic.

No, you're right.  I must set the bar higher...

The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 21 2010,16:35

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Nov. 21 2010,16:30)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dang, the dude is on a roll... or at least a biscuit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Mais pas de croissant.  He'd insist on having a Freedom Bun instead.  (eyeroll)

When my Cub is old enough to worry about such matters, I shall definitely have to reference the Joey--any and all candidates for significant other must exceed him in reading comprehension and logic.

No, you're right.  I must set the bar higher...

The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was gonna say...

You should set the bar such that, if Joey was Earth, then the bar should be somewhere near the edge of the known universe.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Nov. 21 2010,16:43

Point taken.

:D


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: pSimon on Nov. 23 2010,06:49

This keeps coming to mind for some reason...


Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Nov. 24 2010,00:02

Quoth the carlsonjok:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What I don't get is if Joe is not religious, as he is quick to tell, why is he so invested in a global flood?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And then didymos added:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He's also got a real thing for baraminology.  But, you know, he's no creationist. No siree!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Gentlebeings, 'tis simple.  Joey is not religious.  What he has is a deep and meaningful personal relationship with an undefinable, invisible, amorphous entity that conjured up the whole of the multiverse last Thursday before teatime.  That this leads him to voice conclusions that look embarrassingly like the religious dogma of various other people who Are Not As Smart As Joey is completely coincidental.

Completely and utterly.

It's just one of those things.  Like alchemy.  Or Zaphod Beeblebrox.


:D


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 24 2010,08:58

Poor Joe is all alone:

< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....re.html >
Posted by: KCdgw on Nov. 24 2010,09:31

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 24 2010,08:58)
Poor Joe is all alone:

< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....re.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's because all the big bad Darwinists are a-scared to venture on his blog.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 24 2010,09:37

Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 24 2010,09:31)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 24 2010,08:58)
Poor Joe is all alone:

< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....re.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's because all the big bad Darwinists are a-scared to venture on his blog.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sure ID guy will be along soon to keep Joe company.
Posted by: dvunkannon on Nov. 24 2010,14:24

Quote (blipey @ Nov. 19 2010,22:30)
Double post, damn microsoft...rumble, rumble, rumble, mutiny, mutiny, mutiny...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A Stan Freberg quote, wandering lonely across the Internet.

"You mean on top of everything else, this ship is rigged?"
Posted by: keiths on Nov. 24 2010,14:38

Quote (blipey @ Nov. 20 2010,19:26)
Joe misses his friends and < latches onto a sock-puppet for support. >

I feel all warm and fuzzy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is friggin' hilarious:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please stop with the four letter words. You're the only ID proponent that does this, and it negates any points you may have made.
Joe Jensen, Canada
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just for the record, I completely agree with your point of view and engage often, many people of the stupidity of evolution.

I used to be an evolutionist and frequently ridiculed any opposition, including members of my own family.

I seen the light in 1996 and haven't looked back. I've been following this since and never seen an ID proponent use the word "shit" and "tard" against those towing the Evo line.

I only offered my comment with the sincere wish to help the larger cause of the Intelligent design movement.

The description of my work, first name etc. was to emphasize our commonality, in the hopes of persuading you.

I'm calling you a friend anyway, because I seldom meet many ID defenders.
Joe Jensen, Canada
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, if he's from Canada, I guess he can't be Joe G, right?

- Keith S., United States
Posted by: carlsonjok on Nov. 24 2010,14:56

Quote (keiths @ Nov. 24 2010,14:38)
 
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 20 2010,19:26)
Joe misses his friends and < latches onto a sock-puppet for support. >

I feel all warm and fuzzy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is friggin' hilarious:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please stop with the four letter words. You're the only ID proponent that does this, and it negates any points you may have made.
Joe Jensen, Canada
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just for the record, I completely agree with your point of view and engage often, many people of the stupidity of evolution.

I used to be an evolutionist and frequently ridiculed any opposition, including members of my own family.

I seen the light in 1996 and haven't looked back. I've been following this since and never seen an ID proponent use the word "shit" and "tard" against those towing the Evo line.

I only offered my comment with the sincere wish to help the larger cause of the Intelligent design movement.

The description of my work, first name etc. was to emphasize our commonality, in the hopes of persuading you.

I'm calling you a friend anyway, because I seldom meet many ID defenders.
Joe Jensen, Canada
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, if he's from Canada, I guess he can't be Joe G, right?

- Keith S., United States
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've posted this before, but it is appropriate, so I'll post it again.  From the movie < Mystery Men >:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Shoveller: If we had a billionaire like Lance Hunt as our benefactor...
Mr. Furious: That's because Lance Hunt *IS* Captain Amazing
The Shoveller: Don't start that *again*. Lance Hunt wears glasses. Captain Amazing *doesn't* wear glasses.
Mr. Furious: He takes them off when he transforms.
The Shoveller: That doesn't make any sense, he wouldn't be able to see.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: blipey on Nov. 24 2010,16:45

Quote (dvunkannon @ Nov. 24 2010,14:24)
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 19 2010,22:30)
Double post, damn microsoft...rumble, rumble, rumble, mutiny, mutiny, mutiny...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A Stan Freberg quote, wandering lonely across the Internet.

"You mean on top of everything else, this ship is rigged?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank-you.  You are now allowed to apply for foreign aid.
Posted by: didymos on Nov. 24 2010,22:14

Quote (keiths @ Nov. 24 2010,12:38)
Well, if he's from Canada, I guess he can't be Joe G, right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, Joe Jensen lists an email address of "joe@redneckranch.com" in one of his posts over there.  Looking it up via < whois >, it's registered to a "Jake Jensen" in Sumas, WA.  So, JoeJ likely is not JoeG.
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 25 2010,07:50

Quote (darvolution proponentsist @ Nov. 19 2010,22:01)
Quote (khan @ Nov. 19 2010,14:58)
       
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 19 2010,15:55)
       
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 19 2010,14:25)
Brand new tard!

< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....or.html >

           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Snowball Earth- Evotard Evidence for a Global Flood!
-
Snowball Earth is generally accepted to have ended about 650 million years ago.

And seeing that snow is water- according to evotards - then that means there is evidence for a global flood.

Any questions?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ah yes, the 'generally accepted' days of Noah 650 million years ago when it rained snowed got really cold for 40 days and 40 nights several million years.

edited.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait... did Joe actually learn something?  Holy crap!!!

He really learned that snow and ice and hail are all water.  

Who says he's incapable of learning?  It only took, what, 25-30 years to learn that ice and water are the same thing.

Another 3-4 centuries and he may be able to handle that populations evolve and not individuals or that 4000 < 650,000,000.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was getting ready to post that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd have to disagree here, what he has said is that according to us evilutionists snow is water.

Captain Joe America of the United States of Jesus doesn't appear to have conceded this demonstrable fact.

You do own a refrigerator-freezer, do you not Joe ?

Let's try a simple logic problem. (IDist in a vise strategy)

The piece of equipment shown below has three possible outputs. Water\Ice\Crushed Snow



Joe, what is the singular input that is required for the three possible outputs ?

(Spoiler Alert !)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why THREE DIFFERENT outputs if they are all the same thing?

If you want ICE in your drink do you push the "water" button?

If you want a glass of water do you push the "ice" button?

As for your input, well where did that come from?

According to the shit just happens position it arrived on Earth as ICE in meterors, comets and asteroids.

IOW water is just melted ice.
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 25 2010,07:51

Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 19 2010,15:55)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 19 2010,14:25)
Brand new tard!

< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....or.html >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Snowball Earth- Evotard Evidence for a Global Flood!
-
Snowball Earth is generally accepted to have ended about 650 million years ago.

And seeing that snow is water- according to evotards- then that means there is evidence for a global flood.

Any questions?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ah yes, the 'generally accepted' days of Noah 650 million years ago when it rained snowed got really cold for 40 days and 40 nights several million years.

edited.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What I don't get is if Joe is not religious, as he is quick to tell, why is he so invested in a global flood?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Umm I am not invested in any global flood. Oldmanwithhisheaduphisass kept bugging me about the global flood so I responded.
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 25 2010,07:53

Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 20 2010,09:21)
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 19 2010,18:41)
He's also got a real thing for baraminology.  But, you know, he's no creationist. No siree!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe he's referring to baraminology of a different kind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The only "thing" I have for baraminology is that I understand it and it seems that is all the evidence supports.

But I am perfectly OK with alien colonization, as opposed to divine intervention.
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 25 2010,07:58

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 17 2010,18:39)
Hey Joe:  

One: I want a mathematical description of CSI, CSU, IC, whatever.  Keep in mind that I sit next to 8 mathematicians (3 with masters and 1 with a PhD (and another who's about to graduate with a PhD).  I can also get 3 people with PhDs in statistical analysis.  So don't worry your little head about the math.  I can take it.  If I can't I can get help.

Two:  Where's your answer to this:

Ask me a question about real science (not what you THINK (if that's even possible) and I'll provide you with so many citations, your pathetic little 486-66 will asplode.

hmmm... let me go ahead and start.

Evolution has been observed taking place in real world living organisms and documented doing so in peer reviewed scientific papers. From the literature on nylonase alone, we have this collection of scientific papers:

A New Nylon Oligomer Degradation Gene (nylC) On Plasmid pOAD2 From A Flavobacterium sp. by Seiji Negoro, Shinji Kakudo, Itaru Urabe, and Hirosuke Okadam, Journal of Bacteriology, 174(12): 7948-7953 (December 1992)

A Plasmid Encoding Enzymes For Nylon Oligomer Degradation: Nucleotide Sequence And Analysis Of pOAD2 by Ko Kato, Kinya Ohtsuki, Yuji Koda, Tohru Maekawa, Tetsuya Yomo, Seiji Negoro and Itaru Urabe, Microbiology, 141: 2585-2590 (1995)

Biodegradation Of Nylon Oligomers by Seiji Negoro, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 54: 461-466 (26th May 2000)

Birth Of A Unique Enzyme From An Alternative Reading Frame Of The Pre-eEisted, Internally Repetitious Coding Sequence by Susumu Ohno, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 81: 2421-2425 (April 1984)

DNA-DNA Hybridization Analysis Of Nylon Oligomer-Degradative Plasmid pOAD2: Identification Of The DNA Region Analogous To The Nylon Oligomer Degradation Gene by Seiji Negoro, Shunichi Nakamura and Hirosuke Okada, Journal of Bacteriology, 158(2): 419-424 (May 1984)

Emergence Of Nylon Oligomer Degradation Enzymes In Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO Through Experimental Evolution by Irfan J. Prijambada, Seiji Negoro, Tetsuya Yomo and Itaru Urabe, Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022 (May 1995)

Insertion Sequence IS6100 On Plasmid pOAD2, Which Degrades Nylon Oligomers by Ko Kato, Kinya Ohtsuki, Hiroyuki Mitsuda, Tetsuya Yomo, Seiji Negoro and Itaru Urabe, Journal of Bacteriology, 176(4): 1197-1200 (February 1994)

No Stop Codons In The Antisense Strands Of The Genes For Nylon Oligomer Degradation by Tetsuya Yomo, Itaru Urabe and Hirosuke Okada, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 89: 3780-3784 (May 1992)

Nylon Oligomer Degradation Gene, nylC, On Plasmid pOAD2 From A Flavobacterium Strain Encodes Endo-Type 6-Aminohexanoate Oligomer Hydrolase: Purification And Characterisation Of The nylC Product by Shinji Kakudo, Seiji Negoro, Itaru Urabe and Hirosuke Okada, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 59(11): 3978-3980 (November 1993)

Plasmid-Determined Enzymatic Degradation Of Nylon Oligomers by Seiji Negoro, Tomoyasu Taniguchi, Masaharu Kanaoka, Hiroyuki Kimura and Hirosuke Okada, Journal of Bacteriology, 155(1): 22-31 (July 1983)

The nylonase enzyme did not appear in these bacteria until the 1980s. Indeed, Nylon itself, and the oligomers associated with it that these bacteria metabolise, did not exist in the environment until 1935, which means that there was no reason for bacteria to possess a capability to metabolise these substances before that date. Moreover, the mechanism by which the nylonase gene came into being is well known and documented - it was the result of a frameshift mutation that generated a complete new gene that did not previously exist. This is merely one of many instances of evolution being observed taking place - the landmark paper in the field to date is this one:

Historical Contingency And Evolution Of A Key Innovation In An Experimental Population Of Escherichia coli by Zachary D. Blount, Christina Z. Borland and Richard E. Lenski, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 105(23): 7899-7906 (10th June 2008) [Full paper downloadable from here]

Quote

Blount, Borland & Lenski, 2008 wrote:

The role of historical contingency in evolution has been much debated, but rarely tested. Twelve initially identical populations of Escherichia coli were founded in 1988 to investigate this issue. They have since evolved in a glucose-limited medium that also contains citrate, which E. coli cannot use as a carbon source under oxic conditions. No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions of mutations. A citrate-using (Cit+) variant finally evolved in one population by 31,500 generations, causing an increase in population size and diversity. The long-delayed and unique evolution of this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely rare mutation. Alternately, it may involve an ordinary mutation, but one whose physical occurrence or phenotypic expression is contingent on prior mutations in that population. We tested these hypotheses in experiments that ‘‘replayed’’ evolution from different points in that population’s history. We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 × 1012 ancestral cells, nor among 9 × 1012 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations. However, we observed a significantly greater tendency for later clones to evolve Cit+, indicating that some potentiating mutation arose by 20,000 generations. This potentiating change increased the mutation rate to Cit+ but did not cause generalized hypermutability.
Thus, the evolution of this phenotype was contingent on the particular history of that population. More generally, we suggest that historical contingency is especially important when it facilitates the evolution of key innovations that are not easily evolved by gradual, cumulative selection.



Direct Experimental Tests Of Evolutionary Concepts

A Model For Divergent Allopatric Speciation Of Polyploid Pteridophytes Resulting From Silencing Of Duplicate-Gene Expression by Charles R.E. Werth and Michael D. Windham, American Naturalist, 137(4): 515-526 (April 1991) - DEVELOPMENT OF A MODEL TO MATCH OBSERVED SPECIATION IN NATURE

A Molecular Reexamination Of Diploid Hybrid Speciation Of Solanum raphanifolium by David M. Spooner, Kenneth. J. Sytsma and James F. Smith, Evolution, 45(3): 757-764 - DOCUMENTATION OF AN OBSERVED SPECIATION EVENT

Cavefish As A Model System In Evolutionary Developmental Biology by William R. Jeffrey, Developmental Biology, 231:, 1-12 (1 Mar 2001) - contains experimental tests of hypotheses about eye evolution

Chromosome Evolution, Phylogeny, And Speciation Of Rock Wallabies, by G. B. Sharman, R. L. Close and G. M. Maynes, Australian Journal of Zoology, 37(2-4): 351-363 (1991) - DOCUMENTATION OF OBSERVED SPECIATION IN NATURE

Crystal Structure Of An Ancient Protein: Evolution By Conformational Epistasis by Eric A. Ortlund, Jamie T. Bridgham, Matthew R. Redinbo and Joseph W. Thornton, Science, 317: 1544-1548 (14 September 2007) - refers to the reconstruction of ancient proteins from extinct animals by back-tracking along the molecular phylogenetic trees and demonstrating that the proteins in question WORK

Evidence For Rapid Speciation Following A Founder Event In The Laboratory by James R. Weinberg Victoria R. Starczak and Danielle Jörg, Evolution 46: 1214-1220 (15th January 1992) - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Evolutionary Theory And Process Of Active Speciation And Adaptive Radiation In Subterranean Mole Rats, Spalax ehrenbergi Superspecies, In Israel by E. Nevo, Evolutionary Biology, 25: 1-125 - DOCUMENTATION OF OBSERVED SPECIATION IN NATURE

Experimentally Created Incipient Species Of Drosophila by Theodosius Dobzhansky & Olga Pavlovsky, Nature 230: 289 - 292 (2nd April 1971) - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Founder-Flush Speciation On Drosophila pseudoobscura: A Large Scale Experiment by Agustí Galiana, Andrés Moya and Francisco J. Alaya, Evolution 47: 432-444 (1993) EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Genetics Of Natural Populations XII. Experimental Reproduction Of Some Of the Changes Caused by Natural Selection by Sewall Wright & Theodosius Dobzkansky, Genetics, 31(2): 125-156 (1946) - direct experimental tests of natural selection mechanisms

Hedgehog Signalling Controls Eye Degeneration In Blind Cavefish by Yoshiyuki Yamamoto, David W. Stock and William R. Jeffery, Nature, 431: 844-847 (14 Oct 2004) - direct experimental test of theories about eye evolution and the elucidation of the controlling genes involved

Initial Sequencing Of The Chimpanzee Genome And Comparison With The Human Genome, The Chimpanzee Genome Sequencing Consortium (see paper for full list of 68 authors), Nature, 437: 69-87 (1 September 2005) - direct sequencing of the chimpanzee genome and direct comparison of this genome with the previously sequenced human genome, whereby the scientists discovered that fully twenty-nine percent of the orthologous proteins of humans and chimpanzees are IDENTICAL

Origin Of The Superflock Of Cichlid Fishes From Lake Victoria, East Africa by Erik Verheyen, Walter Salzburger, Jos Snoeks and Axel Meyer, Science, 300: 325-329 (11 April 2003) - direct experimental determination of the molecular phylogeny of the Lake Victoria Superflock, including IDENTIFYING THE COMMON ANCESTOR OF THE 350+ SPECIES IN QUESTION and NAMING THAT ANCESTOR as Haplochromis gracilior

Phagotrophy By A Flagellate Selects For Colonial Prey: A Possible Origin Of Multicellularity by Martin.E. Boraas, Dianne.B. Seale and Joseph .E. Boxhorn, Evolutionary Ecology 12(2): 153-164 (February 1998 ) - direct experimental test of hypotheses about the origins of multicellularity

Pollen-Mediated Introgression And Hybrid Speciation In Louisiana Irises by Michael L. Arnold, Cindy M. Buckner and Jonathan J. Robinson, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 88(4): 1398-1402 (February 1991) - OBSERVATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN NATURE

Protein Engineering Of Hydrogenase 3 To Enhance Hydrogen Production by Toshinari. Maeda, Viviana. Sanchez-Torres and Thomas. K. Wood, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 79(1): 77-86 (May 2008) - DIRECT EXPERIMENTAL APPLICATION OF EVOLUTION IN THE LABORATORY TO PRODUCE A NEW BIOTECHNOLOGY PRODUCT

Resurrecting Ancient Genes: Experimental Analysis Of Extinct Molecules by Joseph W. Thornton, Nature Reviews: Genetics, 5: 366-375 (5 May 2004) - direct experimental reconstruction in the laboratory of ancient proteins from extinct animals

Sexual Isolation Caused By Selection For Positive And Negative Phototaxis And Geotaxis In Drosophila pseudoobscura by E. del Solar, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 56: 484-487 (1966) - direct experimental test of selection mechanisms and their implications for speciation

Speciation By Hybridisation In Heliconius Butterflies by Jesús Mavárez, Camilo A. Salazar, Eldredge Bermingham, Christian Salcedo, Chris D. Jiggins and Mauricio Linares, Nature, 441: 868-871 (15th June 2006) - DETERMINATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN NATURE, FOLLOWED BY LABOARTORY REPRODUCTION OF THAT SPECIATION EVENT, AND CONFIRMATION THAT THE LABORATORY INDIVIDUALS ARE INTERFERTILE WITH THE WILD TYPE INDIVIDUALS

Speciation By Hybridization In Phasmids And Other Insects By Luciano Bullini and Guiseppe Nascetti, Canadian Journal of Zoology 68(8): 1747-1760 (1990) - OBSERVATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN NATURE

The Gibbons Speciation Mechanism by S. Ramadevon and M. A. B. Deaken, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 145(4): 447-456 (1991) - DEVELOPMENT OF A MODEL ACCOUNTING FOR OBSERVED INSTANCES OF SPECIATION

The Master Control Gene For Morphogenesis And Evolution Of The Eye by Walter J. Gehrig, Genes to Cells, 1: 11-15, 1996 - direct experimental test of hypotheses concerning eye evolution including the elucidation of the connection between the Pax6 gene and eye morphogenesis, and the experimental manipulation of that gene to control eye development

The Past As The Key To The Present: Resurrection Of Ancient Proteins From Eosinophils by Steven A. Benner, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA., 99(8): 4760-4761 (16 April 2002) - direct experimental reconstruction of ancient proteins from extinct animals

This list is by no means complete, because over eighteen thousand critically robust peer reviewed papers were published in evolutionary biology in 2007 alone. The number of papers published in the subject since Darwin first published The Origin of Species probably exceeds a million or so, if someone were ever to perform the requisite accounting.



As I recall, you have an issue with abiogensis.  First, conflating evolutionary theory with abiogenesis is not only wrong, not only scientifically invalid, but why, as a common creationist fabrication, it too is regarded here with scorn and derision.

As for self replicating systems, if you think scientists have no clue about the formation of these, the following scientific papers will disabuse you of that farcical notion:

A Self-Replicating Ligase Ribozyme by Natasha Paul & Gerald F. Joyce, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 99(20): 12733-12740 (1st October 2002)

A Self-Replicating System by T. Tjivuka, P. Ballester and J. Rebek Jr, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 112: 1249-1250 (1990)

Catalysis In Prebiotic Chemistry: Application To The Synthesis Of RNA Oligomers by James P. Ferris, Prakash C. Joshi, K-J Wang, S. Miyakawa and W. Huang, Advances in Space Research, 33: 100-105 (2004)

Cations As Mediators Of The Adsorption Of Nucleic Acids On Clay Surfaces In Prebiotic Environments by Marco Franchi, James P. Ferris and Enzo Gallori, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 33: 1-16 (2003)

Darwinian Evolution On A Chip by Brian M. Paegel and Gerald F. Joyce, Public Library of Science Biology, 6(4): e85 (April 2008)

Emergence Of A Replicating Species From An In Vitro RNA Evolution Reaction by Ronald R. Breaker and Gerald F. Joyce, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 91: 6093-6097 (June 1994)

Information Transfer From Peptide Nucleic Acids To RNA By Template-Directed Syntheses by Jürgen G. Schmidt, Peter E. Nielsen and Leslie E. Orgel, Nucleic Acids Research, 25(23): 4794-4802 (1997)

Ligation Of The Hairpin Ribozyme In cis Induced By Freezing And Dehydration by Sergei A. Kazakov, Svetlana V. Balatskaya and Brian H. Johnston, The RNA Journal, 12: 446-456 (2006)

Mineral Catalysis And Prebiotic Synthesis: Montmorillonite-Catalysed Formation Of RNA by James P. Ferris, Elements, 1: 145-149 (June 2005)

Montmorillonite Catalysis Of 30-50 Mer Oligonucleotides: Laboratory Demonstration Of Potential Steps In The Origin Of The RNA World by James P. Ferris, Origins of Life and Evolution of the biosphere, 32: 311-332 (2002)

Montmorillonite Catalysis Of RNA Oligomer Formation In Aqueous Solution: A Model For The Prebiotic Formation Of RNA by James P. Ferris and Gözen Ertem, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 115: 12270-12275 (1993)

Nucelotide Synthetase Ribozymes May Have Emerged First In The RNA World by Wentao Ma, Chunwu Yu, Wentao Zhang and Jiming Hu, The RNA Journal, 13: 2012-2019, 18th September 2007

Prebiotic Amino Acids As Asymmetric Catalysts by Sandra Pizzarello and Arthur L. Weber, Science, 303: 1151 (20 February 2004)

Prebiotic Chemistry And The Origin Of The RNA World by Leslie E. Orgel, Critical Reviews in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 39: 99-123 (2004)

Prebiotic Synthesis On Minerals: Bridging The Prebiotic And RNA Worlds by James P. Ferris, Biological Bulletin, 196: 311-314 (June 1999)

Ribozymes: Building The RNA World by Gerald F. Joyce, Current Biology, 6(8): 965-967, 1996

RNA-Catalysed Nucleotide Synthesis by Peter J. Unrau and David P. Bartel, Nature, 395: 260-263 (17th September 1998)

RNA-Catalyzed RNA Polymerization: Accurate and General RNA-Templated Primer Extension by Wendy K. Johnston, Peter J. Unrau, Michael S. Lawrence, Margaret E. Glasner and David P. Bartel, Science, 292: 1319-1325, 18th May 2001

RNA-Directed Amino Acid Homochirality by J. Martyn Bailey, FASEB Journal (Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology), 12: 503-507 (1998)

RNA Evolution And The Origin Of Life by Gerald F. Joyce, Nature, 338: 217-224 (16th March 1989)

Self Replicating Systems by Volker Patzke and Günter von Kiedrowski, ARKIVOC 5: 293-310, 2007

Self-Organising Biochemical Cycles by Leslie E. Orgel, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 97(23): 12503-12507 (7th November 2000)

Self-Sustained Replication Of An RNA Enzyme by Tracey A. Lincoln and Gerald F. Joyce, ScienceExpress, DOI: 10.1126/science.1167856 (8th January 2009)

Sequence- And Regio-Selectivity In The Montmorillonite-Catalysed Synthesis Of RNA by Gözen Ertem and James P. Ferris, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 30: 411-422 (2000)

Synthesis Of 35-40 Mers Of RNA Oligomers From Unblocked Monomers. A Simple Approach To The RNA World by Wenhua Huang and James P. Ferris, Chemical Communications of the Royal Society of Chemistry, 1458-1459 (2003)

Synthesis Of Long Prebiotic Oligomers On Mineral Surfaces by James P. Ferris, Aubrey R. Hill Jr, Rihe Liu and Leslie E. Orgel, Nature, 381: 59-61 (2nd May 1996)

The Antiquity Of RNA-Based Evolution by Gerald F. Joyce, Nature, 418: 214-221, 11th July 2002

The Case For An Ancestral Genetic System Involving Simple Analogues Of The Nucleotides by Gerald F. Joyce, Alan W. Schwartz, Stanley L. Miller and Leslie E. Orgel, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 84: 4398-4402 (July 1987)

The Descent of Polymerisation by Matthew Levy and Andrew D. Ellington, Nature Structural Biology, 8(7): 580-582, July 2001

The Origin And Early Evolution Of Life: Prebiotic Chemistry, The Pre-RNA World, And Time by Antonio Laczano and Stanley R. Miller, Cell, 85: 793-798 (14th June 1996)

The Origin Of Replicators And Reproducers by Eörs Szathmáry, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 361: 1689-1702 (11th September 2006)

The Roads To And From The RNA World[/i] by Jason P. Dworkin, Antonio Lazcano and Stanley L. Miller, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 222: 127-134 (2003)

Transcription And Translation In An RNA World by William R. Taylor, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 361: 1689-1702 (11th September 2006)

That's thirty-three scientific papers covering the emergence of self-replicating systems and their behaviour in a prebiotic environment. If you think this is a problem for scientists, then you obviously never paid attention in proper science classes.

Finally, I'll ask you, what is the shortest RNA chain that can catalyze metabolic and/or cellular functions.  Until you answer that... go away.

Until you have read everyone of the papers I present and explained with references to other peer-reviewed work why the paper is wrong, you have no argument.  You are just a sad little man with delusions of adequacy.
BTW: Remember, the challenge is SCIENTIFIC questions... not questions that you THINK are scientific.

Speaking, of which, why do you keep challenging us, when you can't man up and answer one simple question about ID?

Fuck off, Chicken Little.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey ogre- you are an equivocating fuck, buddy.

"Evolution" isn't being debated, YEC and ID are OK with speciation and ID is OK with universal common descent.

Neither evidence for speciation nor evidence for UCD is evidence for any mechanism.

So perhaps you can find just ONE peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates an accumulation of genetic accidents, ie blind, undirected chemical processes, can construct a functional multi-part system.

As for your abiogenesis pap- it looks like it takes quite a bit of engineering to get those results- the first paper is all about engineering the ribozyme- Joyce and Lincoln engineered their replicating RNAs.

Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Nov. 25 2010,08:06

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:51)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 19 2010,15:55)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 19 2010,14:25)
Brand new tard!

< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....or.html >

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Snowball Earth- Evotard Evidence for a Global Flood!
-
Snowball Earth is generally accepted to have ended about 650 million years ago.

And seeing that snow is water- according to evotards- then that means there is evidence for a global flood.

Any questions?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ah yes, the 'generally accepted' days of Noah 650 million years ago when it rained snowed got really cold for 40 days and 40 nights several million years.

edited.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What I don't get is if Joe is not religious, as he is quick to tell, why is he so invested in a global flood?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Umm I am not invested in any global flood. Oldmanwithhisheaduphisass kept bugging me about the global flood so I responded.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, you are quoting evidence for ideas you don't believe in, just to show up Oldman?  You know, Joe, most of us leave that kind of obstinate, contrary behavior behind when we graduate from our < Terrible Twos >.

ETA: Just because it is so appropriate:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This age is sometimes referred to as 'the terrible twos',[1][2] because of the temper tantrums for which they are famous. This stage can begin as early as nine months old depending on the child and environment. Toddlers tend to have temper tantrums because they have such strong emotions but do not know how to express themselves the way that older children and adults do. They also throw tantrums to let others know that they are free and can do what they want.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Nov. 25 2010,08:07

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes. "Poof" is so much more satisfying in regard to the details.

Where are the citations demonstrating "poof", Joe?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 25 2010,08:12

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Hey ogre- you are an equivocating fuck, buddy.

"Evolution" isn't being debated, YEC and ID are OK with speciation and ID is OK with universal common descent.

Neither evidence for speciation nor evidence for UCD is evidence for any mechanism.

So perhaps you can find just ONE peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates an accumulation of genetic accidents, ie blind, undirected chemical processes, can construct a functional multi-part system.

As for your abiogenesis pap- it looks like it takes quite a bit of engineering to get those results- the first paper is all about engineering the ribozyme- Joyce and Lincoln engineered their replicating RNAs.

Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're ab-so-fucking-lutly correct.  ID is the discussion.

So where's the Evidence?
Where's the Mechanism?
Where's that math you said I couldn't do?*

Thanks for painting yourself into a corner dummy.  Now, whenever you say ANYTHING about evolution, then we're going to bring this quote up and berate you at length for being to stupid to remember what you've already said.

Finally, you why no one has bothered to refute ID in the literature.  Because they don't feel like wasting their time on a useless, hand-waving, vacuous statement that has as much connection to reality as my grandmother did to the USSR submarine forces.

ID isn't refuted, because there's nothing to refute.  You have to present a hypothesis, data, etc before it can be refuted.  So run along and go play with your little friends, while the adults actually do useful work.

Thanks
bye bye now


*Probably because I actually know how to do math.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 25 2010,08:13

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Guess reading isn't a useful skill to having a high IQ (snicker).

Hey, Joe just pulled a Behe.  "I've never read them, but I know they don't refute what I'm saying."
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 25 2010,08:17

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe,
Perhaps you should have actually looked at the references I provided that examine self catalysing networks of chemicals? That meets your requirement exactly.

Undirected chemical processes producing complex, functional networks. Exactly what you've been asking for all these years.  

Perhaps it's not surprising you avoided my questions with regard to the FSCI present in such networks. Who knows where such questions would lead eh? Perhaps even to dancing...
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 25 2010,09:40

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2010,08:17)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe,
Perhaps you should have actually looked at the references I provided that examine self catalysing networks of chemicals? That meets your requirement exactly.

Undirected chemical processes producing complex, functional networks. Exactly what you've been asking for all these years.  

Perhaps it's not surprising you avoided my questions with regard to the FSCI present in such networks. Who knows where such questions would lead eh? Perhaps even to dancing...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I looked at them and they do not do what you say they do.

IOW you are a liar.

Also I was talking about BIOLOGY and you failed to address that.
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 25 2010,09:41

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 25 2010,08:13)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Guess reading isn't a useful skill to having a high IQ (snicker).

Hey, Joe just pulled a Behe.  "I've never read them, but I know they don't refute what I'm saying."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I read the papers assface.

They do not support your claims nor your position.
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 25 2010,09:43

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 25 2010,08:12)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Hey ogre- you are an equivocating fuck, buddy.

"Evolution" isn't being debated, YEC and ID are OK with speciation and ID is OK with universal common descent.

Neither evidence for speciation nor evidence for UCD is evidence for any mechanism.

So perhaps you can find just ONE peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates an accumulation of genetic accidents, ie blind, undirected chemical processes, can construct a functional multi-part system.

As for your abiogenesis pap- it looks like it takes quite a bit of engineering to get those results- the first paper is all about engineering the ribozyme- Joyce and Lincoln engineered their replicating RNAs.

Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're ab-so-fucking-lutly correct.  ID is the discussion.

So where's the Evidence?
Where's the Mechanism?
Where's that math you said I couldn't do?*

Thanks for painting yourself into a corner dummy.  Now, whenever you say ANYTHING about evolution, then we're going to bring this quote up and berate you at length for being to stupid to remember what you've already said.

Finally, you why no one has bothered to refute ID in the literature.  Because they don't feel like wasting their time on a useless, hand-waving, vacuous statement that has as much connection to reality as my grandmother did to the USSR submarine forces.

ID isn't refuted, because there's nothing to refute.  You have to present a hypothesis, data, etc before it can be refuted.  So run along and go play with your little friends, while the adults actually do useful work.

Thanks
bye bye now


*Probably because I actually know how to do math.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Obviously your position doesn't have anything to refute.

It doesn't have a testable hypothesis.

However it does have assholes like you as perfect evidence that humans evolved from lower animals.

Keep up the good work!
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 25 2010,09:44

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 25 2010,08:07)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes. "Poof" is so much more satisfying in regard to the details.

Where are the citations demonstrating "poof", Joe?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I bet you think "poof" was the mecjanism that constructed your car. What's that you are only two and do not have a car?
Posted by: socle on Nov. 25 2010,09:53

'sup, Joe.
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 25 2010,09:55

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,15:44)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 25 2010,08:07)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes. "Poof" is so much more satisfying in regard to the details.

Where are the citations demonstrating "poof", Joe?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I bet you think "poof" was the mecjanism that constructed your car. What's that you are only two and do not have a car?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tell me JoeJoe, do cars reproduce? When a mummy car and a daddy car love each other very much do they have a special hug and produce baby cars? Baby cars that aren't identical copies of their parent cars.

Please let us know, enquiring minds and all that.

Louis
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 25 2010,09:58

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,13:53)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 20 2010,09:21)
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 19 2010,18:41)
He's also got a real thing for baraminology.  But, you know, he's no creationist. No siree!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe he's referring to baraminology of a different kind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The only "thing" I have for baraminology is that I understand it and it seems that is all the evidence supports.

But I am perfectly OK with alien colonization, as opposed to divine intervention.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bolding mine.

I think this is JoeJoe's major malfunction. It's the argument from personal incredulity....again.

Louis
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 25 2010,10:00

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,15:41)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 25 2010,08:13)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Guess reading isn't a useful skill to having a high IQ (snicker).

Hey, Joe just pulled a Behe.  "I've never read them, but I know they don't refute what I'm saying."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I read the papers assface.

They do not support your claims nor your position.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ok Joe, if that's the case then you won't mind going into precise detail about why that is.

Please, with examples and references, be as specific as you possibly can.

Thanks.

Louis
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 25 2010,10:00

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 25 2010,08:12)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Hey ogre- you are an equivocating fuck, buddy.

"Evolution" isn't being debated, YEC and ID are OK with speciation and ID is OK with universal common descent.

Neither evidence for speciation nor evidence for UCD is evidence for any mechanism.

So perhaps you can find just ONE peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates an accumulation of genetic accidents, ie blind, undirected chemical processes, can construct a functional multi-part system.

As for your abiogenesis pap- it looks like it takes quite a bit of engineering to get those results- the first paper is all about engineering the ribozyme- Joyce and Lincoln engineered their replicating RNAs.

Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're ab-so-fucking-lutly correct.  ID is the discussion.

So where's the Evidence?
Where's the Mechanism?
Where's that math you said I couldn't do?*

Thanks for painting yourself into a corner dummy.  Now, whenever you say ANYTHING about evolution, then we're going to bring this quote up and berate you at length for being to stupid to remember what you've already said.

Finally, you why no one has bothered to refute ID in the literature.  Because they don't feel like wasting their time on a useless, hand-waving, vacuous statement that has as much connection to reality as my grandmother did to the USSR submarine forces.

ID isn't refuted, because there's nothing to refute.  You have to present a hypothesis, data, etc before it can be refuted.  So run along and go play with your little friends, while the adults actually do useful work.

Thanks
bye bye now


*Probably because I actually know how to do math.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The evidence is all around and inside of you.

Design is a mecahnism as are targeted searches and built-in responses to environmental cues.

OTOH your position's mechansim is "shit just happens dude".
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 25 2010,10:02

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2010,09:58)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,13:53)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 20 2010,09:21)
 
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 19 2010,18:41)
He's also got a real thing for baraminology.  But, you know, he's no creationist. No siree!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe he's referring to baraminology of a different kind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The only "thing" I have for baraminology is that I understand it and it seems that is all the evidence supports.

But I am perfectly OK with alien colonization, as opposed to divine intervention.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bolding mine.

I think this is JoeJoe's major malfunction. It's the argument from personal incredulity....again.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, that is lame even for an evotard.

Because I understand baraminology and you are ignorant of it that means I am engaging in an argument of personal incredulity?

Are you really that fucked up?

REALLY?
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 25 2010,10:03

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2010,10:00)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,15:41)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 25 2010,08:13)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Guess reading isn't a useful skill to having a high IQ (snicker).

Hey, Joe just pulled a Behe.  "I've never read them, but I know they don't refute what I'm saying."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I read the papers assface.

They do not support your claims nor your position.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ok Joe, if that's the case then you won't mind going into precise detail about why that is.

Please, with examples and references, be as specific as you possibly can.

Thanks.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No Louis why don't YOU go into detail on how they support your position.

Please use examples and references and be as specific as you can.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 25 2010,10:05

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,09:41)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 25 2010,08:13)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Guess reading isn't a useful skill to having a high IQ (snicker).

Hey, Joe just pulled a Behe.  "I've never read them, but I know they don't refute what I'm saying."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I read the papers assface.

They do not support your claims nor your position.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps, since you read all of them, you could explain why the Orgel, Miller paper does not describe exactly what you claim is impossible?

Joe, why do you lie?  You know you never read these papers.  How do I know you lie, because these papers do support my position.

So, show me in detail, why the Orgel, Miller paper cannot work.  Be specific.  Use examples from the paper and other peer-reviewed work (or basic organic chemistry).

Thanks


Actually... all this doesn't matter.  It's YOUR theory of ID that you have to support.  

Again you are cowardly trying to deflect attention away from the fact that there isn't any support from ID.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 25 2010,10:07

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,10:03)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2010,10:00)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,15:41)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 25 2010,08:13)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Guess reading isn't a useful skill to having a high IQ (snicker).

Hey, Joe just pulled a Behe.  "I've never read them, but I know they don't refute what I'm saying."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I read the papers assface.

They do not support your claims nor your position.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ok Joe, if that's the case then you won't mind going into precise detail about why that is.

Please, with examples and references, be as specific as you possibly can.

Thanks.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No Louis why don't YOU go into detail on how they support your position.

Please use examples and references and be as specific as you can.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry Joe, you claim that they are wrong.  You claim that you are smarter than every person who actually does real science.

You have an extraordinary claim... you show it.  We're not doing you work for you.

Why don't you show us that math that you claimed was beyond me?*

Why don't you show that you know what you're talking about instead of be an insulting ass.


* Oh wait, I know, because it doesn't exist.
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 25 2010,10:07

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,16:02)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2010,09:58)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,13:53)
 
Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 20 2010,09:21)
 
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 19 2010,18:41)
He's also got a real thing for baraminology.  But, you know, he's no creationist. No siree!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe he's referring to baraminology of a different kind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The only "thing" I have for baraminology is that I understand it and it seems that is all the evidence supports.

But I am perfectly OK with alien colonization, as opposed to divine intervention.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bolding mine.

I think this is JoeJoe's major malfunction. It's the argument from personal incredulity....again.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, that is lame even for an evotard.

Because I understand baraminology and you are ignorant of it that means I am engaging in an argument of personal incredulity?

Are you really that fucked up?

REALLY?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I didn't say I was ignorant of it. Tut tut JoeJoe. Lose 10 points and go back to troll school.

Louis
Posted by: carlsonjok on Nov. 25 2010,10:08

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2010,09:55)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,15:44)
 
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 25 2010,08:07)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes. "Poof" is so much more satisfying in regard to the details.

Where are the citations demonstrating "poof", Joe?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I bet you think "poof" was the mecjanism that constructed your car. What's that you are only two and do not have a car?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tell me JoeJoe, do cars reproduce? When a mummy car and a daddy car love each other very much do they have a special hug and produce baby cars? Baby cars that aren't identical copies of their parent cars.

Please let us know, enquiring minds and all that.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Thought Provoker on Nov. 25 2010,10:35

Since nothing is going on over at Telic Thoughts, it looks like JoeG got bored enough to comment here.

Out of similar boredom I'm going to respond.

Back when I was still investigating ID I offered to debate JoeG on a level playing field, to compare his hypothesis to mine.  Since this took place on his Blog no one would be surprised that didn’t turn out well. While JoeG has modified a few things, his tactics and position remain the same, which is to define what he wants to argue against while claiming the default position.

His hypothesis can be “falsified” if, and only if, it is proven a metaphysical force is behind evolution.

JoeG’s tactic is pretty much the same as what Behe and Cornelius Hunter employ.

During the Dover trial, Behe testified that he concluded scientific papers did not contradict IC because a searched for the word “random” returned no hits.

Ironically, many ID proponents complain biologists are pushing a metaphysical concept, randomness, while simultaneously declaring there are absolutely no papers addressing it.

Ken Miller and most other scientists have no problem separating their metaphysical beliefs from the task of matching data to detailed scientific models.  And they do it without mentioning either God or randomness.

To preempt complaints about how a statistical observation of “random with respect to…” isn’t the same as claiming randomness was a cause, I understand that.

Apparently, JoeG either doesn’t understand that or is pretending he doesn’t.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 25 2010,10:37

Awwww, isn't it cute that JoeTard was so lonely and desperate for attention he had to come crawling back here?

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xh_9QhRzJEs >
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Nov. 25 2010,10:43

Occam's Aftershave,

Linking to that video was perfection.  Bravo
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 25 2010,10:43

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 25 2010,16:07)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,10:03)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2010,10:00)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,15:41)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 25 2010,08:13)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Guess reading isn't a useful skill to having a high IQ (snicker).

Hey, Joe just pulled a Behe.  "I've never read them, but I know they don't refute what I'm saying."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I read the papers assface.

They do not support your claims nor your position.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ok Joe, if that's the case then you won't mind going into precise detail about why that is.

Please, with examples and references, be as specific as you possibly can.

Thanks.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No Louis why don't YOU go into detail on how they support your position.

Please use examples and references and be as specific as you can.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry Joe, you claim that they are wrong.  You claim that you are smarter than every person who actually does real science.

You have an extraordinary claim... you show it.  We're not doing you work for you.

Why don't you show us that math that you claimed was beyond me?*

Why don't you show that you know what you're talking about instead of be an insulting ass.


* Oh wait, I know, because it doesn't exist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seconded, as it were.

And here is the crux, i.e. why JoeJoe is utterly pointless and barely registers as a human being, and certainly not one worthy of engaging on any level. (Personally I suspect he is mentally ill as well as being intellectually subnormal, but that's a different story. Something pathological is going on with JoeJoe.)

JoeJoe makes some random assertion about something, is asked to justify that assertion to some degree, and simply reflects the request (however polite or rude, however reasonable or unreasonable) back as if he were engaging in an intellectual to and fro. He isn't. He's a troll pure and simple. He can't even be bothered to understand the basics of what he opposes, I mean "shit just happens", brother please! I might as well claim (and I don't) that ID is "shit just happens for a reason" and leave it there.

I'll try to use an example that hopefully even JoeJoe can understand, although why I am wasting the electrons is beyond me, I suppose I have to do something to relax with my afteroon coffee.

I got to work this morning and one of the guys working in my group claimed he'd made one of the key intermediates we need for our project. Good news because people have been struggling for weeks to get it right. So I asked to see the spectral data for the compound. He got the 1HNMR out and stuck it on the desk and we spent a few minutes going through it. Unfortunately a little solvent remained in the sample and thus a significant signal in the 1HNMR was obscured slightly. I asked how he knew he had made the compound he claimed to have made, as a key signal was obscured by impurity signals. How did he reply:

A) I know I have a solvent peak in my 1HNMR, but I also have the M+H ion fromn the LR and HR mass spec, the 13CNMR, IR and the HPLC data, and they all show that this is not the starting material, not one of the reagents, and all the signals are consistent with the desired product. I also have a sample on the high vac so that all solvent will be gone and I'll get a clean 1HNMR by lunchtime.

B) I made the compound because I said I did. I have the 1HNMR assface and it does not support your position that I did not make the compound. It doesn't matter that you can't see the important signal because of an impurity. I read the papers that said the experiment will work, but I'm not going to tell you what those papers are. Typical evotard. Why don't you show me the spectral data that shows I didn't make the compound assclown?

Ok, so answer B) gives JoeJoe too much credit, but clearly we aren't dealing with one of the world's great thinkers.

Anyway, JoeJoe, what SPECIFICALLY is wrong with the data in those papers? What are the SPECIFIC problems. Don't just hand wave them away and say they are irrelevant, show your work. Do you know the difference between assertion and argument?

Louis
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 25 2010,10:44

Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 25 2010,16:08)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2010,09:55)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,15:44)
 
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 25 2010,08:07)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes. "Poof" is so much more satisfying in regard to the details.

Where are the citations demonstrating "poof", Joe?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I bet you think "poof" was the mecjanism that constructed your car. What's that you are only two and do not have a car?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tell me JoeJoe, do cars reproduce? When a mummy car and a daddy car love each other very much do they have a special hug and produce baby cars? Baby cars that aren't identical copies of their parent cars.

Please let us know, enquiring minds and all that.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Rule 34 strikes again.

Louis
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 25 2010,10:44

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 25 2010,10:07)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,10:03)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2010,10:00)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,15:41)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 25 2010,08:13)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Guess reading isn't a useful skill to having a high IQ (snicker).

Hey, Joe just pulled a Behe.  "I've never read them, but I know they don't refute what I'm saying."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I read the papers assface.

They do not support your claims nor your position.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ok Joe, if that's the case then you won't mind going into precise detail about why that is.

Please, with examples and references, be as specific as you possibly can.

Thanks.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No Louis why don't YOU go into detail on how they support your position.

Please use examples and references and be as specific as you can.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry Joe, you claim that they are wrong.  You claim that you are smarter than every person who actually does real science.

You have an extraordinary claim... you show it.  We're not doing you work for you.

Why don't you show us that math that you claimed was beyond me?*

Why don't you show that you know what you're talking about instead of be an insulting ass.


* Oh wait, I know, because it doesn't exist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1- I do not claim they are wrong

2- I do not claim to be smarter than any person who actually does real science.

3- You assholes have the extraordinary claim- that our existence is a mere accident- yet you cannot support it.

IOW Ogre you are just a fucking pathological liar.

As for supporting ID I have done that on many occasions.

However it isn't worth posting that here because the people who run this septic tank have already changed my words- IOW this is a dishonest venuee and you chumps are proof of that.
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 25 2010,10:49

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Nov. 25 2010,10:35)
Since nothing is going on over at Telic Thoughts, it looks like JoeG got bored enough to comment here.

Out of similar boredom I'm going to respond.

Back when I was still investigating ID I offered to debate JoeG on a level playing field, to compare his hypothesis to mine.  Since this took place on his Blog no one would be surprised that didn’t turn out well. While JoeG has modified a few things, his tactics and position remain the same, which is to define what he wants to argue against while claiming the default position.

His hypothesis can be “falsified” if, and only if, it is proven a metaphysical force is behind evolution.

JoeG’s tactic is pretty much the same as what Behe and Cornelius Hunter employ.

During the Dover trial, Behe testified that he concluded scientific papers did not contradict IC because a searched for the word “random” returned no hits.

Ironically, many ID proponents complain biologists are pushing a metaphysical concept, randomness, while simultaneously declaring there are absolutely no papers addressing it.

Ken Miller and most other scientists have no problem separating their metaphysical beliefs from the task of matching data to detailed scientific models.  And they do it without mentioning either God or randomness.

To preempt complaints about how a statistical observation of “random with respect to…” isn’t the same as claiming randomness was a cause, I understand that.

Apparently, JoeG either doesn’t understand that or is pretending he doesn’t.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi Dave! Are you still upset that you are a proven chump?

Do you think that your bullshit actually means something?

Ken Miller is a proven liar- are you proud of that?

Are you not aware of the fact that according to the theory of evolution all mutations and genetic changes are genetic accidents?

According to Monod humans are a mere accident.

Hawking says this universe is an accident.

IOW it is all metaphysical.

But anyways you are as clueless as ever...
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 25 2010,10:49

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,16:44)
[SNIP]

However it isn't worth posting that here because the people who run this septic tank have already changed my words- IOW this is a dishonest venuee and you chumps are proof of that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bolding mine.

Evidence or STFU.

Louis
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 25 2010,10:50

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,09:40)
 
I looked at them and they do not do what you say they do
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What do they say then? I don't believe you are capable of reading, let alone understanding a single one.
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
.
IOW you are a liar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Takes one to know one. The papers I referenced were about undirected formation of complex networks from interacting chemicals. Which is what you've been asking for all these years.
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Also I was talking about BIOLOGY and you failed to address that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just like how you failed to address my question regarding when does chemistry become biology? What's the cut-off point Joe? In case you have not noticed, you are made of chemicals. Right now. Yes, that's right! Chemicals!
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So when I provide a paper (multiple papers in fact) addressing blind undirected chemical processes producing complexity you retort that it's not about BIOLOGY. Yet once does not normally talk about BIOLOGY in terms of the chemicals involved, rather you talk about the biological entities themselves, and the chemicals are a somewhat secondary thing to the function under discussion.

Examples of undirected chemicals forming complex networks are not about BIOLOGY so they are not evidence against your position according to you, but you don't talk about BIOLOGY when you make the claim about chemicals.

Here, let me fix that for you:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Not one paper deals with blind, undirected biological processes producing anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you say that, then that's easily dealt with. Hence your dishonest equivocation on CHEMICALS/BIOLOGY.

So, what is it Joe? What's your claim? That  undirected chemical processes cannot produce "anything" where "anything" is defined to be whatever you want it to be depending on the answer you are given?

If "Answer" = "Self-catalysing networks" then "Response" = "Not about biology".

Why ask about chemicals in the first place Joe then, if chemicals != biology?
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 25 2010,10:50

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2010,10:49)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,16:44)
[SNIP]

However it isn't worth posting that here because the people who run this septic tank have already changed my words- IOW this is a dishonest venuee and you chumps are proof of that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bolding mine.

Evidence or STFU.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The evidence is in the one thread I started.

The one I titled "ID is not anti-evolution" but some assface changed it.

IOW Louis you shut the fuck up you fuck...
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 25 2010,10:51

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2010,10:50)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,09:40)
 
I looked at them and they do not do what you say they do
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What do they say then? I don't believe you are capable of reading, let alone understanding a single one.
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
.
IOW you are a liar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Takes one to know one. The papers I referenced were about undirected formation of complex networks from interacting chemicals. Which is what you've been asking for all these years.
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Also I was talking about BIOLOGY and you failed to address that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just like how you failed to address my question regarding when does chemistry become biology? What's the cut-off point Joe? In case you have not noticed, you are made of chemicals. Right now. Yes, that's right! Chemicals!
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So when I provide a paper (multiple papers in fact) addressing blind undirected chemical processes producing complexity you retort that it's not about BIOLOGY. Yet once does not normally talk about BIOLOGY in terms of the chemicals involved, rather you talk about the biological entities themselves, and the chemicals are a somewhat secondary thing to the function under discussion.

Examples of undirected chemicals forming complex networks are not about BIOLOGY so they are not evidence against your position according to you, but you don't talk about BIOLOGY when you make the claim about chemicals.

Here, let me fix that for you:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Not one paper deals with blind, undirected biological processes producing anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you say that, then that's easily dealt with. Hence your dishonest equivocation on CHEMICALS/BIOLOGY.

So, what is it Joe? What's your claim? That  undirected chemical processes cannot produce "anything" where "anything" is defined to be whatever you want it to be depending on the answer you are given?

If "Answer" = "Self-catalysing networks" then "Response" = "Not about biology".

Why ask about chemicals in the first place Joe then, if chemicals != biology?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fuck you asshole it is up to YOU to make your case.

You have failed to do so.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 25 2010,10:52

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,10:44)
However it isn't worth posting that here because the people who run this septic tank have already changed my words- IOW this is a dishonest venuee and you chumps are proof of that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As opposed to your venue where you choose what posts to allow. And we can see how that's all worked out for you Joe.

One empty dead blog.


Bwhahahaha. You need us far more then we need you Joey!
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 25 2010,10:54

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2010,10:07)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,16:02)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2010,09:58)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,13:53)
 
Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 20 2010,09:21)
   
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 19 2010,18:41)
He's also got a real thing for baraminology.  But, you know, he's no creationist. No siree!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe he's referring to baraminology of a different kind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The only "thing" I have for baraminology is that I understand it and it seems that is all the evidence supports.

But I am perfectly OK with alien colonization, as opposed to divine intervention.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bolding mine.

I think this is JoeJoe's major malfunction. It's the argument from personal incredulity....again.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, that is lame even for an evotard.

Because I understand baraminology and you are ignorant of it that means I am engaging in an argument of personal incredulity?

Are you really that fucked up?

REALLY?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I didn't say I was ignorant of it. Tut tut JoeJoe. Lose 10 points and go back to troll school.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Louis it is obvious that you are just plain ole ignorant.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 25 2010,10:54

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,10:51)
Fuck you asshole it is up to YOU to make your case.

You have failed to do so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have. Then you stopped allowing my posts to go through on your blog. I can't make a better case then the papers I referenced, unless of course you want me to type them in one paragraph at a time into your blog.

IOW it's almost as if you are scared of an adult discussion.

IOW it's almost as if you simply don't read any paper that you are handed.

IOW it's almost as if your position is unchangeable. Like it's written down in a book and cannot be altered.
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 25 2010,10:54

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,16:50)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2010,10:49)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,16:44)
[SNIP]

However it isn't worth posting that here because the people who run this septic tank have already changed my words- IOW this is a dishonest venuee and you chumps are proof of that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bolding mine.

Evidence or STFU.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The evidence is in the one thread I started.

The one I titled "ID is not anti-evolution" but some assface changed it.

IOW Louis you shut the fuck up you fuck...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Link or it didn't happen JoeJoe. Bald assertions prove nothing. You make claim, you demonstrate claim.

Just remember, asking for evidence is not the same as advancing a counter claim. I know, I know, that's hard for you to grasp, but try, it might hurt at first, but eventually you might be able to manage that simple thought.

Louis
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 25 2010,10:55

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,10:54)
Louis it is obvious that you are just plain ole ignorant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Being ignorant is fixable via education.

What you've got Joe, well, there's no cure for that.
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 25 2010,10:55

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2010,10:52)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,10:44)
However it isn't worth posting that here because the people who run this septic tank have already changed my words- IOW this is a dishonest venuee and you chumps are proof of that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As opposed to your venue where you choose what posts to allow. And we can see how that's all worked out for you Joe.

One empty dead blog.


Bwhahahaha. You need us far more then we need you Joey!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Umm I don't need you.

I can watch South Park for my entertainment.

All you assholes are rolled up into Eric Cartman and Mr Hankey.
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 25 2010,10:56

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,16:54)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2010,10:07)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,16:02)
 
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2010,09:58)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,13:53)
   
Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 20 2010,09:21)
     
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 19 2010,18:41)
He's also got a real thing for baraminology.  But, you know, he's no creationist. No siree!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe he's referring to baraminology of a different kind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The only "thing" I have for baraminology is that I understand it and it seems that is all the evidence supports.

But I am perfectly OK with alien colonization, as opposed to divine intervention.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bolding mine.

I think this is JoeJoe's major malfunction. It's the argument from personal incredulity....again.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, that is lame even for an evotard.

Because I understand baraminology and you are ignorant of it that means I am engaging in an argument of personal incredulity?

Are you really that fucked up?

REALLY?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I didn't say I was ignorant of it. Tut tut JoeJoe. Lose 10 points and go back to troll school.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Louis it is obvious that you are just plain ole ignorant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really? Based on what evidence? Your say so? Forgive me but I doubt your say so carries any weight with any person, real or delusional, not already inside your own head.

And I'm sceptical even in that instance.

Louis
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 25 2010,10:57

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2010,10:54)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,16:50)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2010,10:49)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,16:44)
[SNIP]

However it isn't worth posting that here because the people who run this septic tank have already changed my words- IOW this is a dishonest venuee and you chumps are proof of that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bolding mine.

Evidence or STFU.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The evidence is in the one thread I started.

The one I titled "ID is not anti-evolution" but some assface changed it.

IOW Louis you shut the fuck up you fuck...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Link or it didn't happen JoeJoe. Bald assertions prove nothing. You make claim, you demonstrate claim.

Just remember, asking for evidence is not the same as advancing a counter claim. I know, I know, that's hard for you to grasp, but try, it might hurt at first, but eventually you might be able to manage that simple thought.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK loser here it is:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;t=6633 >


Ya see Louis refuting fucked up evotards is easy...
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 25 2010,10:58



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However it isn't worth posting that here because
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Any excuse eh Joe? Funny how it's "not worth" posting your killer evidence here, yet you are happy to post on this thread.

There's a word for that. Begins with H...


Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 25 2010,10:58

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,10:55)
I can watch South Park for my entertainment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yet here you are.
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 25 2010,10:59

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2010,10:54)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,10:51)
Fuck you asshole it is up to YOU to make your case.

You have failed to do so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have. Then you stopped allowing my posts to go through on your blog. I can't make a better case then the papers I referenced, unless of course you want me to type them in one paragraph at a time into your blog.

IOW it's almost as if you are scared of an adult discussion.

IOW it's almost as if you simply don't read any paper that you are handed.

IOW it's almost as if your position is unchangeable. Like it's written down in a book and cannot be altered.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Liar- you never supported anything and all your posts have gone through.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 25 2010,10:59

Joe is immune to reason.  I really don't know what his deal is.

He doesn't claim to be a Christian, which is odd for a ID supporter.

So the only way to figure out if ID works is to show the evidence that supports it... which Joe is scared to do.

He still refuses to show the math... and I've been asking this for months.  His one response was 'you're too stupid to understand'.  

I also don't understand the papers showing show loop quantum gravity is a better choice than M-brane theory, but that doesn't stop Physicists from publishing them.

IOW, Joe, I have  better chance of getting ID support out of my cat's litterbox than from you.
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 25 2010,11:00

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2010,10:58)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However it isn't worth posting that here because
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Any excuse eh Joe? Funny how it's "not worth" posting your killer evidence here, yet you are happy to post on this thread.

There's a word for that. Begins with H...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes I post but just to attack you fuck-head losers.

Buy a vowel you clueless twat...
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 25 2010,11:00

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,10:57)
OK loser here it is:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh Noes, Joe has his own thread where he can post whatever he wants as many times as he wants!

CENSORSHIP! EXPELLED!

Joe, if you don't like the freedom you have here then I suggest you crawl back to UD where critics are banned just as you prefer.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 25 2010,11:01

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,10:59)
Liar- you never supported anything and all your posts have gone through.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Untrue. And you *know* it.
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 25 2010,11:02

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 25 2010,10:59)
Joe is immune to reason.  I really don't know what his deal is.

He doesn't claim to be a Christian, which is odd for a ID supporter.

So the only way to figure out if ID works is to show the evidence that supports it... which Joe is scared to do.

He still refuses to show the math... and I've been asking this for months.  His one response was 'you're too stupid to understand'.  

I also don't understand the papers showing show loop quantum gravity is a better choice than M-brane theory, but that doesn't stop Physicists from publishing them.

IOW, Joe, I have  better chance of getting ID support out of my cat's litterbox than from you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How can I be afraid of doing something that I have already done?

I cannot force you to come to my blog and read it.

And I cannot force you to get "No Free Lunch" and look into the math.

But it is all there and all you have is to ignore it as if your wilfull ignorance is meaningful discourse.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 25 2010,11:02

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,11:00)
Buy a vowel you clueless twat...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh Noes! Evolution is on the ropes now! Joe said a rude word!

Hey, Joe, If ID is not anti-evolution how do we tell the difference between evolution and intelligent design?

Simple question.
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 25 2010,11:03

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2010,11:00)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,10:57)
OK loser here it is:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh Noes, Joe has his own thread where he can post whatever he wants as many times as he wants!

CENSORSHIP! EXPELLED!

Joe, if you don't like the freedom you have here then I suggest you crawl back to UD where critics are banned just as you prefer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you for proving that you are a pathetic little twat.
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 25 2010,11:03

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2010,11:01)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,10:59)
Liar- you never supported anything and all your posts have gone through.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Untrue. And you *know* it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are a liar and you know it- or perhaps you don't...
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 25 2010,11:04

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2010,11:02)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,11:00)
Buy a vowel you clueless twat...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh Noes! Evolution is on the ropes now! Joe said a rude word!

Hey, Joe, If ID is not anti-evolution how do we tell the difference between evolution and intelligent design?

Simple question.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Geez asswipe I have been over that already.

Do you really think your ignorance is meaningful discourse?
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 25 2010,11:06

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,16:57)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2010,10:54)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,16:50)
 
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2010,10:49)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,16:44)
[SNIP]

However it isn't worth posting that here because the people who run this septic tank have already changed my words- IOW this is a dishonest venuee and you chumps are proof of that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bolding mine.

Evidence or STFU.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The evidence is in the one thread I started.

The one I titled "ID is not anti-evolution" but some assface changed it.

IOW Louis you shut the fuck up you fuck...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Link or it didn't happen JoeJoe. Bald assertions prove nothing. You make claim, you demonstrate claim.

Just remember, asking for evidence is not the same as advancing a counter claim. I know, I know, that's hard for you to grasp, but try, it might hurt at first, but eventually you might be able to manage that simple thought.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK loser here it is:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;t=6633 >


Ya see Louis refuting fucked up evotards is easy...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Refute what? I made no claim. I asked for evidence supporting your claim and you linked me to a thread. How does this link to a thread you made prove that someone here editted your words? If the evidence is in the thread link directly to it.

Louis

P.S. It is more than slightly amusing that you are incapable of understanding that asking for evidence of a claim does not equate to advancing a counter claim. Oh, and asking for evidence of something to do with a message board has nothing to do with evolutionary biology, just, you know, FYI.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 25 2010,11:07

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,11:02)
How can I be afraid of doing something that I have already done?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Publish your evidence in the only venue that matters. Peer review.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I cannot force you to come to my blog and read it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Seems you can't force anybody to comment either. Funny that.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And I cannot force you to get "No Free Lunch" and look into the math.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Been there, done that.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The values of the factors arising in the NFL theorems are never properly specified in his analysis. More generally, no consideration is given to whether some of the free lunches in the geometry of induction might be more relevant than the NFL theorems (e.g., those free lunches concerning "head-to-head minimax" distinctions that concern pairs of algorithms considered together rather than single algorithms considered in isolation).

Indeed, throughout there is a marked elision of the formal details of the biological processes under consideration. Perhaps the most glaring example of this is that neo-Darwinian evolution of ecosystems does not involve a set of genomes all searching the same, fixed fitness function, the situation considered by the NFL theorems. Rather it is a co-evolutionary process. Roughly speaking, as each genome changes from one generation to the next, it modifies the surfaces that the other genomes are searching. And recent results indicate that NFL results do not hold in co-evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.talkreason.org/articles/jello.cfm >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But it is all there and all you have is to ignore it as if your wilfull ignorance is meaningful discourse.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Swallowing claims whole without critical analysis is what you do Joe, don't expect the people here to repeat your mistake. It's a somewhat different class of person here then in your ID world where the claims of Behe, Dembski etc are met with uncritical praise.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 25 2010,11:08

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,11:03)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2010,11:01)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,10:59)
Liar- you never supported anything and all your posts have gone through.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Untrue. And you *know* it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are a liar and you know it- or perhaps you don't...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe, you never posted my last couple of posts and you know it. Say what you want, but I think I'll be believed and you won't. Here anyway.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 25 2010,11:10

Hey Joe,
How come nobody responds to you any more at Telic Thoughts?

Have you been remembering to wash?

Is is perhaps that you and chunkdz got drunk one night and did the dirty and now you are two embarrassed to talk to each other? I'd put my money on that....
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Nov. 25 2010,11:11

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,09:40)
     
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2010,08:17)
     
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe,
Perhaps you should have actually looked at the references I provided that examine self catalysing networks of chemicals? That meets your requirement exactly.

Undirected chemical processes producing complex, functional networks. Exactly what you've been asking for all these years.  

Perhaps it's not surprising you avoided my questions with regard to the FSCI present in such networks. Who knows where such questions would lead eh? Perhaps even to dancing...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I looked at them and they do not do what you say they do.

IOW you are a liar.

Also I was talking about BIOLOGY and you failed to address that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What do they say Joe? I can't help but notice that you are strong on assertion but absent in detail.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 25 2010,11:14

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,11:02)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 25 2010,10:59)
Joe is immune to reason.  I really don't know what his deal is.

He doesn't claim to be a Christian, which is odd for a ID supporter.

So the only way to figure out if ID works is to show the evidence that supports it... which Joe is scared to do.

He still refuses to show the math... and I've been asking this for months.  His one response was 'you're too stupid to understand'.  

I also don't understand the papers showing show loop quantum gravity is a better choice than M-brane theory, but that doesn't stop Physicists from publishing them.

IOW, Joe, I have  better chance of getting ID support out of my cat's litterbox than from you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How can I be afraid of doing something that I have already done?

I cannot force you to come to my blog and read it.

And I cannot force you to get "No Free Lunch" and look into the math.

But it is all there and all you have is to ignore it as if your wilfull ignorance is meaningful discourse.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I went to your blog dumbass.

You're entire 'math' based argument was

'Stoopid' has more letters than 'Stupid' and is therefore more functionally accurate or some BS like that.

It's just like what remains of your pathetic life... wanking.  

IOW (cause i know how much you love that phrase): You and your pathetic attempts to support and unsupportable position are irrelevant.
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 25 2010,11:18

Ahhhh found it. Wes snipped some parts of a quote, presumably for sense although I by no means speak for Wes, and then reinserted them when challenged. They didn't change either the argument Wes was making nor the sense of what he was quoting. Personally, I quote things in full and bold the relevant bits but others have different styles. As Wes acknowledged his snip and "corrected"* it, it looks fine to me.

So anyway Joe, that's it? An acknowledged and reinserted snip. Wow. It's more pathetic than I thought. This disproves evolutionary biology how? Do you even know what the argumentum ad hominem is?

Louis

ETA* I say "corrected" because I don't mean to imply what Wes did was "incorrect". Stylistically different from what I would have done, but that's hardly criminal.....actually it's a positive point for Wes! ;-)
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 25 2010,11:22

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 25 2010,17:11)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,09:40)
     
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2010,08:17)
       
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe,
Perhaps you should have actually looked at the references I provided that examine self catalysing networks of chemicals? That meets your requirement exactly.

Undirected chemical processes producing complex, functional networks. Exactly what you've been asking for all these years.  

Perhaps it's not surprising you avoided my questions with regard to the FSCI present in such networks. Who knows where such questions would lead eh? Perhaps even to dancing...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I looked at them and they do not do what you say they do.

IOW you are a liar.

Also I was talking about BIOLOGY and you failed to address that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What do they say Joe? I can't help but notice that you are strong on assertion but absent in detail.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good to see you Steve. Beer in the New Year?

You're far from the only one to notice this....

Louis
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Nov. 25 2010,11:43

Hi JoeG,

In your response to me you may have actually said something significant...

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
According to Monod humans are a mere accident.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The rest of your ranting was either irrelevent or a compliment (getting dissed by JoeG is a badge of honor here).

I looked up Jacques Monod's work.

Here are some links to scientific papers he wrote...

< http://www.rpgroup.caltech.edu/courses....949.pdf >

< http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc....043.pdf >

< http://genepath.med.harvard.edu/~perrim....nod.pdf >

There are many more, but since you were too lazy to provide a link to what you were referencing I had to guess it was his book < Chance and Necessity >

I would be tempted to give you credit for coming up with this except for two things; first, you didn’t bring it up in our “debate” and second, Dembski was pointing to Monod back in the ‘90s.

I’m curious as to why ID Proponents don’t bring up Monod more often.  I don’t recall his name coming up in the Dover trial.  Could it be because Monod also had written on concepts like “Teleonomic Mechanisms in Cellular Metabolism, Growth, and Differentiation” which is the subject of the last paper I linked too.

I’m probably giving too much credit to the ID Movement so I’ll wait to see if someone in AtBC knows of any history concerning Monod and the ID Movement.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Nov. 25 2010,12:11

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2010,11:22)
   
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 25 2010,17:11)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,09:40)
           
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2010,08:17)
           
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe,
Perhaps you should have actually looked at the references I provided that examine self catalysing networks of chemicals? That meets your requirement exactly.

Undirected chemical processes producing complex, functional networks. Exactly what you've been asking for all these years.  

Perhaps it's not surprising you avoided my questions with regard to the FSCI present in such networks. Who knows where such questions would lead eh? Perhaps even to dancing...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I looked at them and they do not do what you say they do.

IOW you are a liar.

Also I was talking about BIOLOGY and you failed to address that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What do they say Joe? I can't help but notice that you are strong on assertion but absent in detail.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good to see you Steve. Beer in the New Year?

You're far from the only one to notice this....

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Beer good. No fucking way tequila again. That did me in.

As for this Joe G tard. Do you think he is capable of learning a damned thing? One plus point, it is behaviour like that which started me on the journey from Christian to Atheist. The lying sack of shit.

Hey Joe, you are in part responsible for me being an atheist now. I thank you.


Having read that back, I "sound" far more bitter in writing than I actually feel. Sorry.

Posted by: Louis on Nov. 25 2010,12:20

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 25 2010,18:11)
[SNIP]

Beer good. No fucking way tequila again. That did me in.

As for this Joe G tard. Do you think he is capable of learning a damned thing? One plus point, it is behaviour like that which started me on the journey from Christian to Atheist. The lying sack of shit.

Hey Joe, you are in part responsible for me being an atheist now. I thank you.


Having read that back, I "sound" far more bitter in writing than I actually feel. Sorry.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ok no tequila. The health kick should be finished in the New Year some time anyway, or at least amenable to gentle hiatus. Have your people call my people.

JoeJoe? He's a junkyard dog. All yap and no bite. Worthy of nothing more than contempt (well, the usual human compassion applies, but nothing in addition to that). If he isn't some 14 year old kid in his mother's basement trolling for kicks (I know /b/, I have experienced Boxie and her followers, I know these people exist), then he is genuinely disturbed and should seek help and remedial education. These two categories are not mutually exclusive and I am deadly serious.

Louis
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Nov. 25 2010,12:49

Whoever used the word tardgasm in the title of this thread deserves a round of applause. That is the perfect description of little Joey's blurts...
Posted by: khan on Nov. 25 2010,13:18

[quote=Louis,Nov. 25 2010,13:20]

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
JoeJoe? He's a junkyard dog. All yap and no bite. Worthy of nothing more than contempt (well, the usual human compassion applies, but nothing in addition to that). If he isn't some 14 year old kid in his mother's basement trolling for kicks (I know /b/, I have experienced Boxie and her followers, I know these people exist), then he is genuinely disturbed and should seek help and remedial education. These two categories are not mutually exclusive and I am deadly serious.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If he especially prolific because it is USA Thanksgiving Day and he is relegated to the basement?
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Nov. 25 2010,14:21

Our family Thanksgiving has been postponed until tomorrow.  Therefore, out of sheer boredom I looked into the history of Monod vs Intelligent Design.

While I heard the