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

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

Pages: (919) < ... 46 47 48 49 50 [51] 52 53 54 55 56 ... >

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2011,06:56    Quote (Raevmo @ Feb. 05 2011,02:13) Dumbest comment ever - anywhere? Quote Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive. You mean we don't?!??!? oops -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2011,07:30    Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 05 2011,06:56) Quote (Raevmo @ Feb. 05 2011,02:13) Dumbest comment ever - anywhere?   Quote Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive. You mean we don't?!??!? oops -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Seversky Posts: 442 Joined: June 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2011,07:43    Quote (Raevmo @ Feb. 05 2011,02:13) Dumbest comment ever - anywhere?   Quote Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive. OMG! Does that mean I'm going to turn into a cow... or sheep... or pig... or chicken... or turkey...?   I'm getting hungry.

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2011,15:53    Quote Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive. IMNSHO, a different code would not by itself make something inedible, especially if it used the same acids for its code. Now if it lacked stuff that humans need, then some other dietary source would be needed along with it, to supply that. Henry

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2011,16:40    Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 05 2011,15:53) Quote Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive. IMNSHO, a different code would not by itself make something inedible, especially if it used the same acids for its code. Now if it lacked stuff that humans need, then some other dietary source would be needed along with it, to supply that. Henry Or it's DNA coded for a protein that was poisonous or toxic... like sole, for example. Joe is so clueless.  I just want to beat him with a clue stick, but my arm would get tired before we got "equivalent to dung beetle". -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Badger3k Posts: 861 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2011,17:19    Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 05 2011,16:40) Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 05 2011,15:53)   Quote Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive. IMNSHO, a different code would not by itself make something inedible, especially if it used the same acids for its code. Now if it lacked stuff that humans need, then some other dietary source would be needed along with it, to supply that. Henry Or it's DNA coded for a protein that was poisonous or toxic... like sole, for example. Joe is so clueless.  I just want to beat him with a clue stick, but my arm would get tired before we got "equivalent to dung beetle". That's the biggest thing in re:edible aliens.  They can have totally different (whatever passes for) DNA, but it is the proteins that matter.  Well, also toxins/poisons or different minerals that our bodies cannot process/handle.  We don't digest things to get to DNA and that is what we eat.  If something has AlienNA instead of DNA, if it uses the same molecules and has similar proteins, odds are it would be edible. At least, that's my limited understanding of the topic.  Could be wrong, though, since I haven't really delved into the idea. Edit - although, to be fair, perhaps he was considering the coming Zombie Apocalypse and wanted to give a justification for giving in to his urges. -------------- "Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2011,18:23    Quote (Badger3k @ Feb. 05 2011,17:19) Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 05 2011,16:40)   Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 05 2011,15:53)   Quote Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive. IMNSHO, a different code would not by itself make something inedible, especially if it used the same acids for its code. Now if it lacked stuff that humans need, then some other dietary source would be needed along with it, to supply that. Henry Or it's DNA coded for a protein that was poisonous or toxic... like sole, for example. Joe is so clueless.  I just want to beat him with a clue stick, but my arm would get tired before we got "equivalent to dung beetle". That's the biggest thing in re:edible aliens.  They can have totally different (whatever passes for) DNA, but it is the proteins that matter.  Well, also toxins/poisons or different minerals that our bodies cannot process/handle.  We don't digest things to get to DNA and that is what we eat.  If something has AlienNA instead of DNA, if it uses the same molecules and has similar proteins, odds are it would be edible. At least, that's my limited understanding of the topic.  Could be wrong, though, since I haven't really delved into the idea. Edit - although, to be fair, perhaps he was considering the coming Zombie Apocalypse and wanted to give a justification for giving in to his urges. I am so ready for the Zombiepocalypse.  Of course, so is Joe... as long as his mummy doesn't get turned. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Schroedinger's Dog Posts: 1692 Joined: Jan. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2011,01:33    I might be going on a limb here, but wouldn't our digestive system have evolved to process whatever these other genetic codes or proteins are? At pains of becoming extinct? In which case there would be no one to ponder over that very deep* phylosophical** statement of Joe's... *not **not -------------- "Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G "I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis "The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2011,14:51    Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 04 2011,08:40) Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 03 2011,14:43) Still waiting for you to answer these: 1- How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that never had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents? 2- How can we test the premise that fish evolved into land animals via an accumulation of genetic accidents? 3- How can we test the premise that reptiles evolved into mammals via an accumulation of genetic accidents? Be comprehensive... GI Joe always resorts to "I'm rubber, you're glue," when backed into a corner. What corner am I backed into? Obviously you can't answer those questions and that proves my point- your position is not scientific. -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2011,14:53    Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 05 2011,15:53) Quote Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive. IMNSHO, a different code would not by itself make something inedible, especially if it used the same acids for its code. Now if it lacked stuff that humans need, then some other dietary source would be needed along with it, to supply that. Henry That's the point- you don't know if a different genetic code would use any of the needed nutrients. -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2011,14:54    Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 06 2011,01:33) I might be going on a limb here, but wouldn't our digestive system have evolved to process whatever these other genetic codes or proteins are? At pains of becoming extinct? In which case there would be no one to ponder over that very deep* phylosophical** statement of Joe's... *not **not True "evolution" can do anything.... -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2011,15:03    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 04 2011,23:46) Hey JoeTard, did you see this? NASA spots scores of potentially livable worlds           Quote An orbiting NASA telescope is finding whole new worlds of possibilities in the search for alien life, spotting more than 50 potential planets that appear to be in the habitable zone. In just a year of peering out at a small slice of the galaxy, the Kepler telescope has discovered 1,235 possible planets outside our solar system. Amazingly, 54 of them are seemingly in the zone that could be hospitable to life — that is, not too hot or too cold, Kepler chief scientist William Borucki said. 54 planets in the habitable zone, and 9 of them are approximately Earth-sized. Is that IDiot astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez you worship going to write a sequel, i.e.  "The 54 Privileged Planets" ?     Bumped for JoeTard, who suddenly has gone mighty quiet on the issue.     -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2011,15:07    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 07 2011,14:54) True "evolution" can do anything.... and ID can't even define itself.  Which is the point Joe. You can point out all the problems of evolution.  In fact, you could disprove evolution right here and now... it still won't mean that Intelligent Design is true. Why do you run from my questions Joe?   Tell me, enlighten me, please.  What is the difference in complexity between a designed thing (gene, protein, sequence, organism) and a non-designed thing of the same kind and length? How do you measure the complexity?  Just tell me the process and I'll do it myself.  What units do we use?  How do you quantify interactions between amino-acids? What values of complexity indicate design?  What values indicate evolution?  Why? Why can't you answer these Joe?   Why, because ID is useless.  You can say whatever you want about evolution.  ID is still useless and an epic waste of time. Until you, and your brethern ID proponents, defend your own ideas, ID will remain, as it has been for 150 years, nothing more than wanking. I predict you won't say anything about ID.  You will attack me personally and you will attack evolution.  It's OK Joe, I know that ID is useless and impossible to define by design (get it?  By design...).  I know you can't answer those questions.   Dembski can't answer them, Meyer can't, Behe can't, Wells can't, and you, poor Joe, can't either. So act like a jerk, attack me, attack evolution, but you know and I know and everyone here knows that you cannot defend ID.  You can't even define it. You do know that ID requires a deity right Joe?  I know you claim not to be a Christian... so how do you deal with the fact that the designer must be a deity?  I think you should point out a link where you attack another pro-ID person for saying that ID requires a deity... maybe Dembski? -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2011,23:58    Lonely, Joe?  People will talk to you longer if you carry on a conversation.  I understand that wasn't part of your homeschooling but it's never too late to learn social skills.  We can help. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

evil bfish with a goatee Posts: 4 Joined: Jan. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2011,00:26    Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 04 2011,08:40) GI Joe always resorts to "I'm rubber, you're glue," when backed into a corner. If Joe ever manages to be an ID expert witness for his local school board, I suspect it'll go something like this.

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2011,08:06    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 07 2011,15:03) Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 04 2011,23:46) Hey JoeTard, did you see this? NASA spots scores of potentially livable worlds           Quote An orbiting NASA telescope is finding whole new worlds of possibilities in the search for alien life, spotting more than 50 potential planets that appear to be in the habitable zone. In just a year of peering out at a small slice of the galaxy, the Kepler telescope has discovered 1,235 possible planets outside our solar system. Amazingly, 54 of them are seemingly in the zone that could be hospitable to life — that is, not too hot or too cold, Kepler chief scientist William Borucki said. 54 planets in the habitable zone, and 9 of them are approximately Earth-sized. Is that IDiot astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez you worship going to write a sequel, i.e.  "The 54 Privileged Planets" ? :D  :D  :D Bumped for JoeTard, who suddenly has gone mighty quiet on the issue.    :p Just because there are planets in the habitable zone does not mean they are habitable. IOW once again occam's asshole proves it is full of shit and ignorant. -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2011,08:12    Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 07 2011,15:07) Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 07 2011,14:54) True "evolution" can do anything.... and ID can't even define itself.  Which is the point Joe. You can point out all the problems of evolution.  In fact, you could disprove evolution right here and now... it still won't mean that Intelligent Design is true. Why do you run from my questions Joe?   Tell me, enlighten me, please.  What is the difference in complexity between a designed thing (gene, protein, sequence, organism) and a non-designed thing of the same kind and length? How do you measure the complexity?  Just tell me the process and I'll do it myself.  What units do we use?  How do you quantify interactions between amino-acids? What values of complexity indicate design?  What values indicate evolution?  Why? Why can't you answer these Joe?   Why, because ID is useless.  You can say whatever you want about evolution.  ID is still useless and an epic waste of time. Until you, and your brethern ID proponents, defend your own ideas, ID will remain, as it has been for 150 years, nothing more than wanking. I predict you won't say anything about ID.  You will attack me personally and you will attack evolution.  It's OK Joe, I know that ID is useless and impossible to define by design (get it?  By design...).  I know you can't answer those questions.   Dembski can't answer them, Meyer can't, Behe can't, Wells can't, and you, poor Joe, can't either. So act like a jerk, attack me, attack evolution, but you know and I know and everyone here knows that you cannot defend ID.  You can't even define it. You do know that ID requires a deity right Joe?  I know you claim not to be a Christian... so how do you deal with the fact that the designer must be a deity?  I think you should point out a link where you attack another pro-ID person for saying that ID requires a deity... maybe Dembski? Yet ID has been defined. Also part of the design inference is to demonstrate that chance and necessity just are not up to it. IOW you are ignorant of how the design inference works. As for not answering questions, well that would be you. You won't even try answering the three questions I posted here. You are a coward- an Addled Tard Behaving Cowardly. ID does not require a deity. BTW ID is not about mere complexity. IOW your ignorance runs deep and you blame me. Strange. You do realize that all you have to do to refute ID is to actually step up and start providing positive evidence for your position. Attacking me, other IDists and ID is not going to provide positive evididence for your position. If ID didn't exist you still wouldn't have any positive evidence. So what the fuck is your problem? What are you waiting for? -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2011,08:13    Still waiting for you to answer these: 1- How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that never had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents? 2- How can we test the premise that fish evolved into land animals via an accumulation of genetic accidents? 3- How can we test the premise that reptiles evolved into mammals via an accumulation of genetic accidents? Be comprehensive... -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2011,08:17    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 08 2011,08:13) Still waiting for you to answer these: 1- How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that never had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents? 2- How can we test the premise that fish evolved into land animals via an accumulation of genetic accidents? 3- How can we test the premise that reptiles evolved into mammals via an accumulation of genetic accidents? Be comprehensive... 1) Make a parallel earth with a population of bacteria that don't have flagellum. Wait. 2) See 1. 3) See 1. I don't know Joe. I'm stuck. Perhaps you can suggest a way to answer those questions? If *you* were a silly Darwinist how would you go about answering those questions. Please give me the benefit of your wisdom. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2011,08:27    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 08 2011,08:12) Yet ID has been defined. Has it? Can you tell me where please? If I look at UD it seems that the bodyplan of a cow is beyond the resources of evolution to create and so the designer must have helped, but if I look at TT it seems that the designer was only involved at the very start, it created primordial life and let it be. Which is it Joe?   Quote Also part of the design inference is to demonstrate that chance and necessity just are not up to it. IOW you are ignorant of how the design inference works. Yes, because we're all very familiar we how you've ruled out chance and necessity in all the examples of the EF you've provided.   Quote As for not answering questions, well that would be you. I'm rubber, you are glue. I have a list of questions you've ignored Joe, want a reminder?   Quote You won't even try answering the three questions I posted here. You are a coward- an Addled Tard Behaving Cowardly. Answer or not, ID is and will never go anywhere.   Quote ID does not require a deity. BTW ID is not about mere complexity. IOW your ignorance runs deep and you blame me. Strange. But if I look at TT it's quite clear that it does. Let me put it simply for you: A) If first life is too complex to have evolved then it must have been designed. B) If the designer of life is itself "alive" then it could not have evolved (see A) and so must be a deity. C) If the designer of life is not a deity, it must be organic. If it's organic then it must have been designed as it could not have evolved on it's own (See A, B). Therefore the designer of ID is a deity, even if it's one or  N removed.   Quote You do realize that all you have to do to refute ID is to actually step up and start providing positive evidence for your position. You do realise that the version of ID that you claim can be refuted depends on what site/book you are reading at the time? So it's impossible to "refute" as the other side will always win, whatever side is refuted.   Quote Attacking me, other IDists and ID is not going to provide positive evididence for your position. If ID didn't exist you still wouldn't have any positive evidence. Joe, ID might as well not exist for all the difference it makes to science. And I'd suggest you let the Darwinists worry about the lack of positive evidence for their position and further I'd suggest that you need to generate your own positive evidence.   Quote So what the fuck is your problem? What are you waiting for? That's rich from you. What are you waiting for? Somebody to say "Joe, oh you are so right, you've disproven that silly idea that's been hanging round for so long". Not gonna happen Joe They know a doctor gonna take you away They take you away and throw away the key They dont want you and they dont want me You got a problem the problem is you Problem problem problem the problem is you What you gonna do Problem problem problem -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2011,09:05    As predicted, Joe can't explain ID.   As predicted Joe attacks the person that reminds him he can't explain ID. As predicted Joe attacks evolution because he can't support ID. I told you Joe, I'm waiting for you to teach me the process.  This is the perfect chance.  I've got a bunch of mathmaticians and psycometricians that aren't working very hard right now.  (It will get very busy about end of March, so get with it please.) I can't do the ID work unless you tell me what it is Joe.  It's that simple, I can't know anything about ID unless you tell me.  You see, all your sites (as OldMan has pointed out) all say different things. And of course, ID requires a deity.  It's been proven to be so. Let's say the designer of all life on Earth was a time-travelling alien cell-biologist.  Well, who deisgned him?  Or why does life on Earth need to be designed and not the alien? Unless we live in the matrix, then no physical, natural entity could construct the universe.  Yet, many ID proponents use physcial constants and the 'design' of the universe as evidence for design.  Tell me, Joe, who could design our universe without being a part of our universe.  I assure you that no living thing in our universe could have designed. Therefore, any designer you wish to invoke must be deital.  I don't know why you haven't figured this out, you're soooo much smarter than me. BTW: You still haven't answered these simple questions that prove that ID can't  exist. 1) What's the difference in complexity between a designed and a non-designed thing of the same type? If you can't answer that one Joe, then there is no possible way for you to tell which things are designed and which are not. 2) How do you measure complexity (process, units, values for design and non-design)?   If you can't answer that, then you can't even begin to answer number 1. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2011,09:27    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 08 2011,08:06)   Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 07 2011,15:03)     Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 04 2011,23:46) Hey JoeTard, did you see this? NASA spots scores of potentially livable worlds               Quote An orbiting NASA telescope is finding whole new worlds of possibilities in the search for alien life, spotting more than 50 potential planets that appear to be in the habitable zone. In just a year of peering out at a small slice of the galaxy, the Kepler telescope has discovered 1,235 possible planets outside our solar system. Amazingly, 54 of them are seemingly in the zone that could be hospitable to life — that is, not too hot or too cold, Kepler chief scientist William Borucki said. 54 planets in the habitable zone, and 9 of them are approximately Earth-sized. Is that IDiot astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez you worship going to write a sequel, i.e.  "The 54 Privileged Planets" ?     Bumped for JoeTard, who suddenly has gone mighty quiet on the issue.     Just because there are planets in the habitable zone does not mean they are habitable. But JoeTard, the major theme of Gonzalez' brain fart was that Earth is special because it's in the "Goldilocks" zone.  It's "privileged."  But now we know dozens more in the same "privileged" zone, and many of them are Earth sized. Guess we're not as special as we thought.  Except you Joetard.  You're thooper-dooper special.   -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2011,09:30    Quote Just because there are planets in the habitable zone does not mean they are habitable. Just because there are apples in the water bucket that does not mean they are wet. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2011,09:31    Joe.  You can work an example of the EF in action, right? Joe.  You can work an example showing the information content of something (your choice), right? Joe.  You do understand the importance of examples in teaching, right? Good.  I knew you'd be the right choice for Science Instructor of the Year. Now link to some places I can forward that show your awesomeness in action. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Robin Posts: 1431 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2011,10:02    As a public service, I thought I'd provide a brief translation of Joe's responses to make it easier for newer folk to understand what he really means:   Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 08 2011,08:12) Yet ID has been defined. Translation: I don't actually know what that definition is so I can't provide it to you, but I'm pretty sure there is one. It has something to do with begging the question.   Quote Also part of the design inference is to demonstrate that chance and necessity just are not up to it. IOW you are ignorant of how the design inference works. Translation: The term "design inference" has been defined to mean that chance and necessity are not sufficient for complex biological organisms, so that's what it means and that means that it demonstrates that evolution doesn't work. That's how the design inference works - we infer design in whatever we see it in. See how easy that is?   Quote As for not answering questions, well that would be you. You won't even try answering the three questions I posted here. You are a coward- an Addled Tard Behaving Cowardly. Translation: This IS my response to your questions! How can you say I haven't answered your questions when my creating strawmen questions and then accusing you of not answering those questions IS my answer! So there! Neh!   Quote ID does not require a deity. BTW ID is not about mere complexity. IOW your ignorance runs deep and you blame me. Strange. Translation:No explanations or even investigations into any deity or other "intelligent" source for creation is necessary, since ID is only about trying to poke holes in evolutionary theory! Haven't you folks figured that out yet???   Quote You do realize that all you have to do to refute ID is to actually step up and start providing positive evidence for your position. Translation: See, ID isn't actually science, so we can't  propose any actual  hypotheses to test, nevermind do any actual testing or other research. So what if it doesn't actually explain anything? The only way to falsify this beautiful "theory" that explains everything is for actual scientists who do actual evolutionary research to poke holes in it! Isn't this a great this a great theory?!?!?   Quote Attacking me, other IDists and ID is not going to provide positive evididence for your position. If ID didn't exist you still wouldn't have any positive evidence. Translation: [i]But attacking YOU guys and YOUR theory of evolution IS evidence for ID! Man...I LOVE this theory!!   Quote So what the fuck is your problem? What are you waiting for? Translation: Oh...and throwing in the token insults makes me feel less wimpy, which is MAJOR bonus! Man...I need a cigarette now... -------------- we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

Robin Posts: 1431 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2011,10:07    [quote=Joe G,Feb. 08 2011,08:13][/quote] Quote Still waiting for you to answer these: 1- How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that never had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents? 2- How can we test the premise that fish evolved into land animals via an accumulation of genetic accidents? 3- How can we test the premise that reptiles evolved into mammals via an accumulation of genetic accidents? Be comprehensive... Still waiting for you to define genetic accidents since the term is not used in any scientific discipline concerning organisms. Also waiting for you to reveal where these "premises" come from since they don't come from evolutionary theory. -------------- we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2011,10:08    Quote (blipey @ Feb. 08 2011,09:31) Joe.  You can work an example of the EF in action, right? Joe.  You can work an example showing the information content of something (your choice), right? Joe.  You do understand the importance of examples in teaching, right? Good.  I knew you'd be the right choice for Science Instructor of the Year. Now link to some places I can forward that show your awesomeness in action. No, Joe can't do that.  I've been asking him to do this for months, if not a year.   Instead of making one decent post explaining the process, he yells at me.  Then he links to a post on his blog where he counts the letters in the word 'aardvark' or something like that. He's an intellectual coward pretending to be smart because he's too scared to admit the truth. What I don't understand is why he insists on ID, when he's not a Christian.  First of all, denying one is a Christian, when one is a Christian is a sin. (Remember poor Peter, the rock upon which the church was built... except that it wasn't... anyway.) Honestly, though, I don't really care.  I just like that fact that Joe refuses to answer the simplest of questions. Hey Joe, repeat after me: Even if I disprove evolution, it doesn't mean ID is correct.  Only positive evidence for ID can show ID is correct... and I don't have any. Repeat a million times until you figure it out. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2011,10:12    Hey Joe, why don't you understand how scientific evidence works?  oh wait... If you were really interested, then you could do the research.  Start with 'bacterial flagellum' or 'tetrapod evolution' or 'evolution of mammals' on wikipedia. Then read all the referenced material, then read all the linked articles, then read all the referenced material in those. But you won't because you don't care.  You just have your personal ideology which defies anyone else's attempts to understand (actually, you do that, but you get the point). Keep going Joe, you're the best argument against ID I've seen. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2011,10:34    Quote (blipey @ Feb. 08 2011,10:31) Joe.  You can work an example of the EF in action, right? Joe.  You can work an example showing the information content of something (your choice), right? Joe.  You do understand the importance of examples in teaching, right? Good.  I knew you'd be the right choice for Science Instructor of the Year. Now link to some places I can forward that show your awesomeness in action. how about a baseball!  or some caek -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2011,11:27    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 08 2011,09:27) Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 08 2011,08:06)     Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 07 2011,15:03)     Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 04 2011,23:46) Hey JoeTard, did you see this? NASA spots scores of potentially livable worlds                 Quote An orbiting NASA telescope is finding whole new worlds of possibilities in the search for alien life, spotting more than 50 potential planets that appear to be in the habitable zone. In just a year of peering out at a small slice of the galaxy, the Kepler telescope has discovered 1,235 possible planets outside our solar system. Amazingly, 54 of them are seemingly in the zone that could be hospitable to life — that is, not too hot or too cold, Kepler chief scientist William Borucki said. 54 planets in the habitable zone, and 9 of them are approximately Earth-sized. Is that IDiot astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez you worship going to write a sequel, i.e.  "The 54 Privileged Planets" ? :D  :D  :D Bumped for JoeTard, who suddenly has gone mighty quiet on the issue.    :p Just because there are planets in the habitable zone does not mean they are habitable. But JoeTard, the major theme of Gonzalez' brain fart was that Earth is special because it's in the "Goldilocks" zone.  It's "privileged."  But now we know dozens more in the same "privileged" zone, and many of them are Earth sized. Guess we're not as special as we thought.  Except you Joetard.  You're thooper-dooper special.  :D It isn't just the zone you moron. The zone is one of about TWENTY criteria that have to be met to have a habitable planet capable of supporting complex metazoans. You didn't read the book and don't have any clue as to what they claimed. -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Pages: (919) < ... 46 47 48 49 50 [51] 52 53 54 55 56 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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