Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: The Joe G Thread started by blipey


Posted by: blipey on June 27 2007,11:33

Joe G is funny, but so completely impervious to any regular human interactions that a thread for him is probably useless.

That being said, I had to post this latest from his blog.  It's almost unimaginable that he would publish my comment.  I mean aren't these people supposed to be Bible Code experts and all?  If so, isn't it odd that he didn't find anything < here: >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
blipey said...

   Jump into the fray
   Over and over we go
   Even though there are no
   Great secrets to be learned,
   I troll the waters.
   Searching for prey,
   Somedays I pounce.
   Today is one of those days.
   Up and up we go,
   Perilously high--
   I defy
   Discussion to be had.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The entire thread is more Joe not being able to fathom what his own sentences mean.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp on June 27 2007,11:42

Quote (blipey @ June 27 2007,11:33)
Joe G is funny, but so completely impervious to any regular human interactions that a thread for him is probably useless.

That being said, I had to post this latest from his blog.  It's almost unimaginable that he would publish my comment.  I mean aren't these people supposed to be Bible Code experts and all?  If so, isn't it odd that he didn't find anything < here: >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
blipey said...

   Jump into the fray
   Over and over we go
   Even though there are no
   Great secrets to be learned,
   I troll the waters.
   Searching for prey,
   Somedays I pounce.
   Today is one of those days.
   Up and up we go,
   Perilously high--
   I defy
   Discussion to be had.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The entire thread is more Joe not being able to fathom what his own sentences mean.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nice.


He'll reinterpret that to mean he's a genius.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp on June 27 2007,11:51

< Holy Shit >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
currator asks:
What do you think evidence of Common Descent in the fossil record would look like?

Truthfully I wouldn't expect to see Common Descent in the fossil record. That is because not everything that has lived and died was fossilized.

I think it is silly to use the fossil record for anything except to show what was around at some time in the past.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Talk about shooting oneself in the foot. Joe just effectively argued for the fact that there are not transitional fossils for every single stage of evolution.
Posted by: J-Dog on June 27 2007,12:29

Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ June 27 2007,11:51)
< Holy Shit >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
currator asks:
What do you think evidence of Common Descent in the fossil record would look like?

Truthfully I wouldn't expect to see Common Descent in the fossil record. That is because not everything that has lived and died was fossilized.

I think it is silly to use the fossil record for anything except to show what was around at some time in the past.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Talk about shooting oneself in the foot. Joe just effectively argued for the fact that there are not transitional fossils for every single stage of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Didn't someone say that he lives in his parent's basement?  

Well, at least he's out of the gene pool, -  that can't be good for getting lucky!

At least we won't have to track him down and sterilize him after we materialists win our war on Christians and imprison him with all the IDists like Dembksi.


JOE G IS STUPID is genius BTW... Remember to use your power only for good, never evil.
Posted by: Gunthernacus on June 27 2007,13:40

Quote (J-Dog @ June 27 2007,12:29)
JOE G IS STUPID is genius BTW...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL. I read that whole effing thread looking for that - I thought maybe it was a commenter's name - before I saw it. Good show!

Minutiae:  Joe G posts at ARN as Joe G now, but got banned while posting as "ID's Bulldog".
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 27 2007,15:15

Should someone tell Joe the Maytag man that this thread exists? Might be good for giggles.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 27 2007,15:46

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 27 2007,15:15)
Should someone tell Joe the Maytag man that this thread exists? Might be good for giggles.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, I *honestly* have a friend who works for Maytag. I feel slighted on his behalf.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 27 2007,15:49

Quote (Gunthernacus @ June 27 2007,13:40)
Quote (J-Dog @ June 27 2007,12:29)
JOE G IS STUPID is genius BTW...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL. I read that whole effing thread looking for that - I thought maybe it was a commenter's name - before I saw it. Good show!

Minutiae:  Joe G posts at ARN as Joe G now, but got banned while posting as "ID's Bulldog".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


More great "design detection"...
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 27 2007,15:53

Joe < whines > about them poor, persecuted, disenfranchised White people:



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

I knew Mike Keohan- he was a good guy, but he was white and overweight (sarcasm). I guess that is a crime punishable by death once you are in LA.

Where's the outrage? Sorry Mike you were just another Mic/ Wop American mutt. Nobody cares about whitebread anymore...


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


Posted by: blipey on June 27 2007,19:20

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 27 2007,15:15)
Should someone tell Joe the Maytag man that this thread exists? Might be good for giggles.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Done.
Posted by: blipey on June 27 2007,19:27



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
More great "design detection"...

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



don't make me "ban" you for "inverted" comma usage, hughes.
Posted by: Mister DNA on June 27 2007,19:50

Joe G./John Paul, more than any other creationist, reminds me of Martin Short's character, lawyer < Nathan Thurm >. A lot of creationists remind me of that character, but no one gives off that "I knew that! What makes you think I wouldn't know that?!?" vibe like Joe G.
Posted by: slpage on June 28 2007,09:18

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 27 2007,15:15)
Should someone tell Joe the Maytag man that this thread exists? Might be good for giggles.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hold on now - Joe G is a SCIENTIST!  He has even said so - because (and this was the rationale he used) he has a Bachelors of SCIENCE (in electronics engineering)!  So we must all bow down to Joe G's amazing super insights on all things scientific!
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 28 2007,10:49

Quote (slpage @ June 28 2007,09:18)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 27 2007,15:15)
Should someone tell Joe the Maytag man that this thread exists? Might be good for giggles.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hold on now - Joe G is a SCIENTIST!  He has even said so - because (and this was the rationale he used) he has a Bachelors of SCIENCE (in electronics engineering)!  So we must all bow down to Joe G's amazing super insights on all things scientific!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"He has a Bachelor's Degree -- in science!"
Posted by: blipey on June 28 2007,11:55

Joe's inviting everyone to come to his house for dinner.  I'm going to take him up on it.  Of course I think it will turn out much like my attempt to visit DaveScot.  You can only keep trying.

There are a lot of creationists that I still need to scratch of my list.

< Invite here. >
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp on June 28 2007,12:01

Quote (slpage @ June 28 2007,09:18)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 27 2007,15:15)
Should someone tell Joe the Maytag man that this thread exists? Might be good for giggles.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hold on now - Joe G is a SCIENTIST!  He has even said so - because (and this was the rationale he used) he has a Bachelors of SCIENCE (in electronics engineering)!  So we must all bow down to Joe G's amazing super insights on all things scientific!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sheesh. I have a B.S. in ecosystems assessment but I am in no way a "Scientist". Unless computer science counts...
Posted by: blipey on June 28 2007,12:05

Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ June 28 2007,12:01)
Quote (slpage @ June 28 2007,09:18)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 27 2007,15:15)
Should someone tell Joe the Maytag man that this thread exists? Might be good for giggles.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hold on now - Joe G is a SCIENTIST!  He has even said so - because (and this was the rationale he used) he has a Bachelors of SCIENCE (in electronics engineering)!  So we must all bow down to Joe G's amazing super insights on all things scientific!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sheesh. I have a B.S. in ecosystems assessment but I am in no way a "Scientist". Unless computer science counts...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I (along with richardhughes, I believe) have a B.A. in BS.  Does that mean I'm a scientist?  It'll look good on the resume.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp on June 28 2007,12:08

Quote (blipey @ June 28 2007,12:05)
Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ June 28 2007,12:01)
Quote (slpage @ June 28 2007,09:18)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 27 2007,15:15)
Should someone tell Joe the Maytag man that this thread exists? Might be good for giggles.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hold on now - Joe G is a SCIENTIST!  He has even said so - because (and this was the rationale he used) he has a Bachelors of SCIENCE (in electronics engineering)!  So we must all bow down to Joe G's amazing super insights on all things scientific!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sheesh. I have a B.S. in ecosystems assessment but I am in no way a "Scientist". Unless computer science counts...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I (along with richardhughes, I believe) have a B.A. in BS.  Does that mean I'm a scientist?  It'll look good on the resume.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nice.


I looked further down on his blog and he has an entire post on the boycott Exxon/Mobil lower gas prices hoax.


I guess he's never heard of < Snopes > or < Google > for that matter.
Posted by: blipey on June 28 2007,12:16

Merely a bit of street theatre.  The insane are never hooked by hoaxes.

< Hoaxed by hookers >, but never hooked by hoaxes.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 28 2007,12:17

Quote (blipey @ June 28 2007,11:55)
Joe's inviting everyone to come to his house for dinner.  I'm going to take him up on it.  Of course I think it will turn out much like my attempt to visit DaveScot.  You can only keep trying.

There are a lot of creationists that I still need to scratch of my list.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Passing through Toronto anytime soon? You could always try to arrange lunch with Denyse...
Posted by: blipey on June 28 2007,16:53

Joe:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then have a discussion in which a method of testing can be hammered out. Then do it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is Joe's idea of a lesson plan.  He wants to show The Privileged Planet in schools and then discuss how the science might be done.  I suppose this means he wants to discuss it with the students.  Not really how science should be done, but with these guys the students are probably a lot smarter.

Maybe 3rd graders could show Joe how not to look so stupid.

< Comments in the high 20s on this thread >
Posted by: Paul Flocken on June 28 2007,17:57

He should probably refrain from giving his debating opponents hammers.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on June 28 2007,21:44

from the blipey-joe g commentary....



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But thank you for again demonstrating why ID needs to presented in schools- education cures ignorance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



wow that is tard on a whole 'notha level.  I'll pass.  blipey you have iron lungs.  i thought my fundies were dumb.
Posted by: slpage on June 29 2007,10:20

Quote (blipey @ June 28 2007,16:53)
Joe:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then have a discussion in which a method of testing can be hammered out. Then do it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is Joe's idea of a lesson plan.  He wants to show The Privileged Planet in schools and then discuss how the science might be done.  I suppose this means he wants to discuss it with the students.  Not really how science should be done, but with these guys the students are probably a lot smarter.

Maybe 3rd graders could show Joe how not to look so stupid.

< Comments in the high 20s on this thread >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wrote a < brief blog post > about Joe's infatuation with THE PP.

I am not at all surprised that someone like Joe would find that line of 'reasoning' compelling - why, we are in just the right spot to see what we can see!  OBVIOUSLY designed!

Even a loony nut case creationist engineer agreed that
< such 'reasoning' was silly >...
Posted by: blipey on June 29 2007,12:23

OOOHHHH!!!!  Ftk is posting at Joe's place!

< Put on a hard hat before entering. >
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 29 2007,12:27

Quote (blipey @ June 29 2007,12:23)
OOOHHHH!!!!  Ftk is posting at Joe's place!

< Put on a hard hat before entering. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, now that FTK has apparently stomped out of here, she'll need to find some other place to spend her copious free time.

I don't think Maytag Joe can keep her long tho. I think he'll bore her to tears. FTK seems to enjoy lively, antagonistic relationships, at least in the internets.
Posted by: blipey on June 29 2007,12:30

And this is his lesson plan, astounding.  What's even more astounding is he probably has no idea why he would be a bad teacher or why schools wouldn't let him present.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Blipey: So, fine, show The Privileged Planet, but under what lesson plan?

JoeG: I would show it to the whole school. It would not be a part of any particular class.

All I am looking for is to expose students to ID reality.

Blipey: Why are you taking up valuable educational time with a film?

JoeG: Films are part of that valuable educational time. And that valuable educational time is already being wasted with dogma- ie unsubstantiated and unverifiable grand claims.


Blipey: If I were to have Richard Dawkins in to speak to the class, I would need a lesson plan in order to do it.

JoeG: But you're not a teacher. Why would you need a lesson plan?

Blipey: So, what specific educational lessons and state criteria are we getting from your ID introductions?

JoeG: You would be getting a lesson in ID reality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That last is stellar.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 29 2007,12:34

Quote (blipey @ June 29 2007,12:30)
And this is his lesson plan, astounding.  What's even more astounding is he probably has no idea why he would be a bad teacher or why schools wouldn't let him present.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Blipey: So, fine, show The Privileged Planet, but under what lesson plan?

JoeG: I would show it to the whole school. It would not be a part of any particular class.

All I am looking for is to expose students to ID reality.

Blipey: Why are you taking up valuable educational time with a film?

JoeG: Films are part of that valuable educational time. And that valuable educational time is already being wasted with dogma- ie unsubstantiated and unverifiable grand claims.


Blipey: If I were to have Richard Dawkins in to speak to the class, I would need a lesson plan in order to do it.

JoeG: But you're not a teacher. Why would you need a lesson plan?

Blipey: So, what specific educational lessons and state criteria are we getting from your ID introductions?

JoeG: You would be getting a lesson in ID reality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That last is stellar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?"

[pause]

"These go to eleven."
Posted by: blipey on June 29 2007,16:52

Oh, I hit Joe's soft spot.  He won't publish a comment in which I called him on his claim of being a scientist.  I asked him to provide his degree, but no publishing even though several other comments I made afterwards have gone through.

Too close to home, I guess.
Posted by: blipey on June 29 2007,17:30

Joe G claims he is not like DaveScot, then posts this in response to my accepting his invitation to his home:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And now you're stupid enough to go to a hunter's backyard and mess with him.

Stupidity. Sheer stupidity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Similar to something recently...if I could only place it.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 29 2007,17:34

Quote (blipey @ June 29 2007,17:30)
Joe G claims he is not like DaveScot, then posts this in response to my accepting his invitation to his home:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And now you're stupid enough to go to a hunter's backyard and mess with him.

Stupidity. Sheer stupidity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Similar to something recently...if I could only place it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Try Denyse up in Toronto. She probably won't threaten to kill you.
Posted by: ericmurphy on June 29 2007,18:56

I had this argument with JoeG on Telic thoughts years ago (before I knew he was famous) about the evolution of whales. His position was that, how can you say whales have evolved from land-based mammals, if you can't even show that it's possible for them to evolve?

I said, well, the existence of fossils which illustrate the evolution of whales from fully land-based mammals to semi-aquatic to fully-aquatic is pretty conclusive proof that it's possible for them to evolve, wouldn't you say? It's like debating whether it's possible for 747s to fly after watching one pass by overhead.

His response: "How can you say whales have evolved from land-based mammals, if you can't even show that it's possible for them to evolve?"

Lather. Rinse. Repeat. It never got any more interesting than that.
Posted by: ericmurphy on June 29 2007,18:59

Quote (slpage @ June 28 2007,07:18)

Hold on now - Joe G is a SCIENTIST!  He has even said so - because (and this was the rationale he used) he has a Bachelors of SCIENCE (in electronics engineering)!  So we must all bow down to Joe G's amazing super insights on all things scientific!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really? AFDave (who morphed into afdave1 at richarddawkins.net) made exactly the same argument.

What are the chances?
Posted by: blipey on June 29 2007,23:22



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It never got any more interesting than that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Joe does walk a thin line--actually stepping on both sides in some random manner--between boring and stupidly hilarious.

I think it tips slightly in the favor of stupidly hilarious for the sole reason that he thinks he's interesting.
Posted by: stevestory on June 29 2007,23:34

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 29 2007,13:34)
"Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?"

[pause]

"These go to eleven."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


that scene really just perfectly embodies that kind of obliviousness.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nigel:  This is a top to a, you know, what we use on stage, but it's
       very...very special because if you can see...
Marty:  Yeah...
Nigel:  ...the numbers all go to eleven.  Look...right across the board.
Marty:  Ahh...oh, I see....
Nigel:  Eleven...eleven...eleven....
Marty:  ...and most of these amps go up to ten....
Nigel:  Exactly.
Marty:  Does that mean it's...louder?  Is it any louder?
Nigel:  Well, it's one louder, isn't it?  It's not ten.  You see,
       most...most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten.  You're on ten
       here...all the way  up...all the way up....
Marty:  Yeah....
Nigel:  ...all the way up.  You're on ten on your guitar...where can you go
       from there?  Where?
Marty:  I don't know....
Nigel:  Nowhere.  Exactly.  What we do is if we need that extra...push over
       the cliff...you know what we do?
Marty:  Put it up to eleven.
Nigel:  Eleven.  Exactly.  One louder.
Marty:  Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top...
       number...and make that a little louder?
Nigel:  ...these go to eleven.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: blipey on June 30 2007,00:08

More spot on scholarship from JoeG:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Monkies have a tail...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I guess he's never heard of the < macaque >?

< Link >
Posted by: Mister DNA on June 30 2007,00:27

Quote (stevestory @ June 29 2007,23:34)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 29 2007,13:34)
"Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?"

[pause]

"These go to eleven."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


that scene really just perfectly embodies that kind of obliviousness.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nigel:  This is a top to a, you know, what we use on stage, but it's
       very...very special because if you can see...
Marty:  Yeah...
Nigel:  ...the numbers all go to eleven.  Look...right across the board.
Marty:  Ahh...oh, I see....
Nigel:  Eleven...eleven...eleven....
Marty:  ...and most of these amps go up to ten....
Nigel:  Exactly.
Marty:  Does that mean it's...louder?  Is it any louder?
Nigel:  Well, it's one louder, isn't it?  It's not ten.  You see,
       most...most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten.  You're on ten
       here...all the way  up...all the way up....
Marty:  Yeah....
Nigel:  ...all the way up.  You're on ten on your guitar...where can you go
       from there?  Where?
Marty:  I don't know....
Nigel:  Nowhere.  Exactly.  What we do is if we need that extra...push over
       the cliff...you know what we do?
Marty:  Put it up to eleven.
Nigel:  Eleven.  Exactly.  One louder.
Marty:  Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top...
       number...and make that a little louder?
Nigel:  ...these go to eleven.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


This deserves a visual aid...

Posted by: blipey on July 13 2007,14:59

We may finally get a picture of what Joe thinks a nested hierarchy is.  Exciting.

If he dodges this, he truly has no idea how to eat his own breakfast cereal and we should call 911.

Blipey:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Perhaps "descendant" is a poor choice of words.  However, the point is much th same; I think we agree.  I just want to make sure before we continue.

Any unit in the structure (say "Squad") is completely contained in the unit above it ("Platoon" in this case).  However, there exist such Platoons that a particular Squad is not contained in.  This is what I meant by using the word "descendants".  It is also what I meant by the possible unclarity of the diagram.  I merely stated that it was possible to misconstrue what the NH was in that diagram--not that it was wrong or could not be easily learned (I guess you missed that part).

So, do we agree that there exists some "Squad A" that is contained in "Platoon X" and that "Squad A" is not contained in any "Platoon ~X"?

Likewise IF "Squad A" is contained in "Platoon X" AND "Platoon X" is not contained in "Company Y", THEN there exists no situation in which "Squad A" is contained in "Company Y".

This is my contention for a NH.  Does it jibe with yours?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Read it here. >

Scroll down to about the 33rd comment or so.
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 15 2007,08:51



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We may finally get a picture of what Joe thinks a nested hierarchy is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Joe Gallien engage in honest debate? That would be something! ;) I see he still hides behind his moderation wall.
Posted by: blipey on July 15 2007,15:30

Well, it honestly something.  He's painted himself into such a corner with trying to refute absolutely anything anyone but he himself says that I don't think he knows what he thinks a NH is.

< His latest try at what a NH is. >

JoeG:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ya see a father is like the general. He is at the top of his particular family but does not consist of his family. Therefore, as I have stated too many times to count, the best a paternal family tree can hope for is a non-nested hierarchy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is his stated opinion, backed up so far with...hmmm, nothing.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Blipey: The next level of ARMY includes several Corps. The next level of TREE includes several Sons (Bob, Dave, Steve).

JoeG: And they will ALWAYS be below Father A and will never be included with him in that scheme.

Ya see, just as I have already told you, the soldier belongs to ALL levels AT THE SAME TIME. The same does NOT hold for your "paternal family tree".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I guess he's never heard the term "family name".  Or ever been asked to what family he belongs?

Stooooopendous.
Posted by: slpage on July 16 2007,15:10

Quote (blipey @ June 29 2007,17:30)
Joe G claims he is not like DaveScot, then posts this in response to my accepting his invitation to his home:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And now you're stupid enough to go to a hunter's backyard and mess with him.

Stupidity. Sheer stupidity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Similar to something recently...if I could only place it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, not to sound macho or anything, but JoeG and Davey Springer are just old fashioned pussies.  They talk a big tough guy talk - on the internet - then suddenly try to avoid any actual meetings.  He has a history of doing that - me, Rob Rapier, Skepticboy, etc....
Posted by: blipey on July 16 2007,22:56

OMG

JoeG:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And one more time for the learning impaired:

In a nested hierarchy levels are determined by characteristic traits. "Who's your daddy?" is NOT a characteristic trait.

"Family of Bob" (for example) isn't any good if there is more than one "Bob" in the family.

And it still remains that there really isn't a paternal family tree due to biological constraints. That plus the fact there isn't any true beginning, just various arbitrary starting points.

In both examples I gave there is one and only one true beginning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I really think that might be the single stupidest contention I have ever heard.

Does he really think that two people named Bob can never be identified as separate entities?

This really encapsulates the creationist mindset of not being able to extrapolate information from a set of basic premises.

< Yeesh. >
Posted by: stevestory on July 16 2007,23:09

yesterday and today I tried to follow this thread. It hasn't worked. I can't understand anything as dumb as Joe G denying that familial relationships work into a nested hierarchy. It doesn't make sense to me what he's saying. I just can't get it.
Posted by: blipey on July 16 2007,23:18

Quote (stevestory @ July 16 2007,23:09)
yesterday and today I tried to follow this thread. It hasn't worked. I can't understand anything as dumb as Joe G denying that familial relationships work into a nested hierarchy. It doesn't make sense to me what he's saying. I just can't get it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It doesn't make any sense to me either and I think we agree that it doesn't make sense in the "WTF kind of way" not in the "that argument is dumb ind of way".

I find it fascinating that words can be put together in such a way that they form a coherent sentence which makes no sense.  Every once in a great while he puts something down that gets ever so slightly closer to the inner core of this NH dis-belief.  I truly believe that I may live to see into that dark core of whatever-it-is.

I've now asked him if he disagrees that the Sons of Steve can be placed in all of the following categories:

1.  Family of Steve
2.  Family of Bob
3.  Family of Chris

He will, of course, avoid answering this question, but someday he may slip up and give out some info on his opinion in this matter.

If even an indirect look at what his answer to that question can be had, oh what a day...for comedy.
Posted by: blipey on July 17 2007,23:00

Someone should call Joe's wife and let her know he needs some intervention.

He not only claims that a paternal family tree is not a nested hierarchy, but get this:

JoeG:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am denying that a paternal family tree (which doesn't exist in the real world)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

-from the same thread as above.

That's right; it is even IMPOSSIBLE TO CONSTRUCT A FAMILY TREE.

Boy, are the Mormons going to be pissed.
Posted by: blipey on July 19 2007,09:08

Joe seems to have reversed his position on whether or not a paternal family tree can be constructed:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That one can create a paternal family tree does not mean such a tree is a nested hierarchy!

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



Oh, but wait.  No.  He so got me in his logical vice of death:  "Reality demonstrates that I never said or implied that."

Got me.
Posted by: Rob on July 19 2007,18:29

Joe:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can construct a scheme containing mythical creatures. Does that mean they exist in reality? No

I can construct a scheme based on Roman "gods" (or Greek "gods"). Does that mean they exist in reality? No
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And Joe can construct a scheme based on fathers.  Does that mean that they exist in reality?  No

The onus is now on you, Blipey, to prove that fathers exist in reality.  When you're done, you might want to also prove that transitive is not the same as intransitive.  That would really clear some things up for Joe.
Posted by: blipey on July 19 2007,23:21

Quote (Rob @ July 19 2007,18:29)
Joe:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can construct a scheme containing mythical creatures. Does that mean they exist in reality? No

I can construct a scheme based on Roman "gods" (or Greek "gods"). Does that mean they exist in reality? No
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And Joe can construct a scheme based on fathers.  Does that mean that they exist in reality?  No

The onus is now on you, Blipey, to prove that fathers exist in reality.  When you're done, you might want to also prove that transitive is not the same as intransitive.  That would really clear some things up for Joe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, communication seems something of a bugbear for Joe.  I wonder how he'd do on the verbal portion of any college entrance exam--or < The Wonderlic >, for that matter.
Posted by: franky172 on July 20 2007,08:16

Quote (blipey @ July 16 2007,23:18)
 
Quote (stevestory @ July 16 2007,23:09)
yesterday and today I tried to follow this thread. It hasn't worked. I can't understand anything as dumb as Joe G denying that familial relationships work into a nested hierarchy. It doesn't make sense to me what he's saying. I just can't get it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It doesn't make any sense to me either and I think we agree that it doesn't make sense in the "WTF kind of way" not in the "that argument is dumb ind of way".

I find it fascinating that words can be put together in such a way that they form a coherent sentence which makes no sense.  Every once in a great while he puts something down that gets ever so slightly closer to the inner core of this NH dis-belief.  I truly believe that I may live to see into that dark core of whatever-it-is.

I've now asked him if he disagrees that the Sons of Steve can be placed in all of the following categories:

1.  Family of Steve
2.  Family of Bob
3.  Family of Chris

He will, of course, avoid answering this question, but someday he may slip up and give out some info on his opinion in this matter.

If even an indirect look at what his answer to that question can be had, oh what a day...for comedy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hm.  Sorry if this is pedantic, but I think I see JoeG's confusion regarding a nested hierarchy.  He keeps harping on the following:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On the other hand, the general at the top of a military command does not consist of his soldiers and so the military command is a non-nested hierarchy with regard to the soldiers in the army. Pecking orders and a food chains are also non-nested hierarchies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And I think his confusion stems from the following understanding "any element at level N of a nested hierarchy (NH) must also be a member of level N-1 of the sane NH". He interprets this to mean that the following is a NH:



---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------

       Bob
       /    \
    Steve     Harry
  /      \    /       \
Pete    Barry Larry   Moe

---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------



if and only if larry is a "harry".  Which is by definition "false" - calling "larry" "harry" is incorrect.  But, of course, this misses the point which is that the hierarchy isn't on particular "people"; a NH is built exclusively on relationships.  Perhaps the following explanation of the same NH would clarify for Joe, where D(x) represents descendents of (x), including "x":



---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------

             D(Bob)
                /    \
      D(Steve)   D(Harry)
/      \    /       \
D(Pete), D(Barry), D(Larry), D(Moe)

---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------



Where now it is true that all "descendents of Larry" are "descendents of Harry", even though "Larry" is not a "Harry".

In this way the web page he cites is properly correct:

General --> Major --> PFC

is not a nested hierarchy because "Majors" are not "Generals".  But the following is a nested hierarchy (where U(x) represents "under the command of 'x'":



---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------

           U(General)
           /        \
   U(Major1)     U(Major2)
  /        \       /      \
U(PFC1),U(PFC2),U(PFC3),U(PFC4).

---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------



Could that be the confusion?  Or is Joe just too far gone?
Posted by: blipey on July 20 2007,15:49

That is exactly his confusion.  Joe however, like most creationists and the ineducable, will not listen to that explanation.  Why?

I think it is because the argument does not start with the words Nested Hierarchy.  He likes to argue from the end and support his argument of the end by citing the end.

He does not understand proper logical argument.  If you try to make a basic point A in order to develop it into a point B and finally on to Conclusion X, he wont listen.

Since Point A doesn't make the whole argument, it is wrong.  He always makes his arguments by stating Conclusion X and never giving supporting assumptions, facts, or arguments.  This is the only type of logical that is in his grasp.
Posted by: blipey on July 20 2007,17:21

@ franky172:

I've given Joe the link to your above excellent comment.  We'll see exactly what kind of response we get.  My thought is that he'll say exactly the same thing he always does:

Nanananana-boo-boo.
Posted by: franky172 on July 21 2007,01:06

Quote (blipey @ July 20 2007,17:21)
@ franky172:

I've given Joe the link to your above excellent comment.  We'll see exactly what kind of response we get.  My thought is that he'll say exactly the same thing he always does:

Nanananana-boo-boo.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sure Joe will :)

Out of curiosity, where is the current discussion?
Posted by: blipey on July 22 2007,15:23

Quote (franky172 @ July 21 2007,01:06)
Quote (blipey @ July 20 2007,17:21)
@ franky172:

I've given Joe the link to your above excellent comment.  We'll see exactly what kind of response we get.  My thought is that he'll say exactly the same thing he always does:

Nanananana-boo-boo.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sure Joe will :)

Out of curiosity, where is the current discussion?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Here it is. >

Both the "nananana-boo-boo" and an extra "franky172 is a stupid boob" thrown in for good measure.

I've now had my fill of JoeG; he's perhaps the stupidest person I have ever encountered.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 22 2007,16:06



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

I've now had my fill of JoeG; he's perhaps the stupidest person I have ever encountered.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Blipey, do you ever get the feeling that Joe is some kind of bizarre pet you're watching?
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 22 2007,16:27



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've now had my fill of JoeG
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



We'll see, Blipey, we'll see. Take it from one who knows, addictions aren't that easy to break. ;)
Posted by: blipey on July 22 2007,16:58

All of my pets have been way more interesting than Joe and probably smarter as well.  Let's see, Siamese Cats, Airdale Terrier, Cockatiel, a pair of Newts, Red Devil.

Yep. All more interesting.  Joe doesn't even move on to different phrasing of stupid sentences.  He says A, then A, backs it up with A, and then links to A.  Once you've looked at the 3 or so topics that Joe blathers about, it's all very boring.

I think I've actually read every sentence that Joe will ever form.  He can, at this point, add no new information to the universe.  There are other, while still stupid, more interesting tards to watch.
Posted by: franky172 on July 22 2007,22:55

Quote (blipey @ July 22 2007,16:58)
All of my pets have been way more interesting than Joe and probably smarter as well.  Let's see, Siamese Cats, Airdale Terrier, Cockatiel, a pair of Newts, Red Devil.

Yep. All more interesting.  Joe doesn't even move on to different phrasing of stupid sentences.  He says A, then A, backs it up with A, and then links to A.  Once you've looked at the 3 or so topics that Joe blathers about, it's all very boring.

I think I've actually read every sentence that Joe will ever form.  He can, at this point, add no new information to the universe.  There are other, while still stupid, more interesting tards to watch.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh jeez.  What have I gotten myself into.  I can't stop.....  I'm not going to post anything on Joe's blog, but I imagine he may follow this thread, and I assume he isn't banned here, so if he would like to discuss this further I might suggest he post a response here.  

But here I go:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I read frank172 and he is incorrect also. Not only that he appears to put words in my mouth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Precisely what part of your argument did I misrepresent in my post.  Please be specific.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That seems to be common amonst evolutionitwits.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Name calling does not add to the strength of your argument.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Perhaps you guys should focus on the OP and the rules of hierarchy theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let's.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hierarchical levels: levels are populated by entities whose properties characterize the level in question.

Level of organization: this type of level fits into its hierarchy by virtue of set of definitions that lock the level in question to those above and below.

The ordering of levels: there are several criteria whereby other levels reside above lower levels.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do we agree with these rules?  Do we agree with the following definition of a nested hierarchy:

"A nested hierarchy is a structured set of sets, where all sets are potentially connected "above" to "parent" sets and "below" to "child" sets, such that all elements of a node's children are elements of the node.  The "top-most" node in such a structure, if it exists, has no parent and is called the "root node"."

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Note the words "several criteria".

To re-iterarte- With a paternal family tree levels are determined by ONE and only ONE criterion- “Who’s your daddy?”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The argument in your original post appears to be that since a paternal family tree relies on only one "criteria" it is not a nested hierarchy.  Is this a correct statement of your argument?

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
With Kingdon, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species, we sapiens (species) also belong to the Genus Homo, the Family Hominindae, the Order Primates, the Class Mammalia, the Phylum Chordata and the Kingdom Anamalia.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Very good.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
With a paternal family tree the lower levels will never be part of the upper level. The person on the top will always be a separate entity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I believe this is false.  Let D(x) denote the set {x,descendants of x}.  Then I argue that the following is a nested hierarchy:

Example 1:


---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------

                D(sam)
               /           \
D(sam's first son) D(sam's second son)

---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------



   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However I do think it's funny that you think that other morons are going to be able to help you out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Name calling does not add to the strength of your argument.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why is it that you people still refuse to abide by the rules of hierarchy?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which rules in particular are violated in example (1) above.  Please be specific.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And why would blipey run to some other anonymous imbeciles for support?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Name calling does not add to the strength of your argument.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
K->P->C->O->F->G->S
   is NOT a nested hierarchy but:
   _P/\C_C
   /\_/\_/\_/\
   and so on is!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I believe you have mis-understood the fundamentals of the argument.  Re-shaping the way we draw the structure does not alter the underlying type of structure we are dealing with.  Carefully defining the terms used to generate the sets does.  For example if we assume "A = {set of all aces}", "K = {set of all kings}" etc,

A->K->Q->J->10->9...

is not a nested hierarchy, because "Aces" don't consist of "Kings".  However if we define a "below" operator: "B(x) = {s : the value of s is less than or equal to x}" then:
B(A)->B(K)->B(Q)->B(J)->...

Does form a nested hierarchy because the elements of the set "B(Q)" include the elements of "B(J)".  Do we agree that this ordering of playing cards forms a nested hierarchy?  If so, why does the following not form a nested hierarchy:

D(sam) -> D(sam's first son) -> D(sam's first grandson)?

If not, why not?

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It would be best to find someone that actually knows what they are talking about.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Name calling does not add to the strength of your argument.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Better luck next time clowny. Until then I will have to go with the experts and authorities that agree with my premise that a paternal family tree is not a nested hierarchy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have not encountered any of these people.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And that there are other imbeciles that agree with blipey sure does say quite a bit about the level of education of evolutionitwits.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Name calling does not add to the strength of your argument.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It doesn't follow the rules.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which of the rules does the paternal family tree not follow?

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
LoL!!! That is why I have been asking you to draw up a paternal family tree without the names.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



D(p1) -> D(p1's first son) -> D(p1's first grandson)?

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In both valid schemes of a nested hierarchy that I have presented, it is clear that the lowest level belongs to ALL nodes leading to it INCLUDING the top level.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A descendant of p1's first grandson is a descendant of p1's first son is a descendant of p1.  Yes or no?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In a paternal family tree Steve is at the top node- alone. Not Steve's family. Steve does not consist of his family any more than a general consists of his troops.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But D(p1) consists of D(p1's first son).  Yes?
Posted by: Joe G on July 23 2007,07:52

Here ya go:

< Nested Hierarchy for Dummies >

And Franky172, if you don't agree with the rules of hierarchy then you have more problems than I care to address.

Here are those rules:

< Summary of the Principles of Hierarchy >

Notice the following:

Nested and non-nested hierarchies: nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels.

Do you still think that a paternal family tree is a nested hierarchy?

You probably do, but then again you are also an evolutionist.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 23 2007,10:18



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

You probably do, but then again you are also an evolutionist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A devastating rhetorical stroke. Or, you could throw around the insult 'Darwinist' like VMartin does. He wins lots of arguments that way.

Aren't you a Muslim, Joe? I thought you said so at one point.
Posted by: blipey on July 23 2007,11:03

So I suppose you will now tell us specifically why



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
D(p1) consists of D(p1's first son)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



this is not true?

I mean, besides saying that Darwinists are only 3'8"?  That is your argument, right?  That Darwinists are wrong about everything because they're short?  Or is it because they eat bacon?

Come on, Joe.  Now that you're here, how about telling us WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY:

A FAMILY does not consist of its members.

WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY?

Why does the family of Dave not consist of Dave's family?

WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY

How can franky172's definition of the sets in a nested hierarchy be wrong?

HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW

Specific mathematical refutation please.
Posted by: franky172 on July 23 2007,11:06

You have not answered any of my questions.  I will repeat some:

1) Precisely what part of your argument did I misrepresent in my post.  Please be specific.

2) Do we agree with the following definition of a nested hierarchy:

"A nested hierarchy is a structured set of sets, where all sets are potentially connected "above" to "parent" sets and "below" to "child" sets, such that all elements of a node's children are elements of the node.  The "top-most" node in such a structure, if it exists, has no parent and is called the "root node"."

3) The argument in your original post appears to be that since a paternal family tree relies on only one "criteria" it is not a nested hierarchy.  Is this a correct statement of your argument?

4) Which rules in particular are violated in example (1) above.  Please be specific.

5) However if we define a "below" operator: "B(x) = {s : the value of s is less than or equal to x}" then:
B(A)->B(K)->B(Q)->B(J)->...

Does form a nested hierarchy because the elements of the set "B(Q)" include the elements of "B(J)".  Do we agree that this ordering of playing cards forms a nested hierarchy?  If so, why does the following not form a nested hierarchy:

D(sam) -> D(sam's first son) -> D(sam's first grandson)?

If not, why not?

Continuing:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nested and non-nested hierarchies: nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels.

Do you still think that a paternal family tree is a nested hierarchy?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes.  Can you please answer the following question.  In the following:

D(p1) -> D(p2) -> D(p3)

Does the level D(p2) consist of and contain D(p3)?

Yes or no?  I believe that most people believe that D(p2) consists of and contains D(p3).  You appear to disagree.



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

You probably do, but then again you are also an evolutionist.

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


This is not aiding your argument.
Posted by: Rob on July 23 2007,11:48

I'm not paying much attention to the nested hierarchy celebrity showdown, but it was impossible not to notice the following when glancing at Joe's site:



Maybe Joe can reconcile the statements circled in red for us.  I look forward to some vintage Joe, and I'm hoping he won't forget his patented "Reality says you're wrong."
Posted by: Rob on July 23 2007,12:07

And Joe, we're hoping you'll come back to < this thread > at Alan's blog to answer some questions for us.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 23 2007,13:49

Quote (Rob @ July 23 2007,11:48)
I'm not paying much attention to the nested hierarchy celebrity showdown, but it was impossible not to notice the following when glancing at Joe's site:



Maybe Joe can reconcile the statements circled in red for us.  I look forward to some vintage Joe, and I'm hoping he won't forget his patented "Reality says you're wrong."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nice Find.

Joe, are you capable of discussing matters on a unmoderated forum, or will you scuttle off back to safe ground?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 23 2007,14:13

This is a moderated forum. It's just not a crushingly moderated forum. Moderation is a good thing, really.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 23 2007,14:17

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 23 2007,14:13)
This is a moderated forum. It's just not a crushingly moderated forum. Moderation is a good thing, really.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's okay in moderation.  ???
Posted by: Joe G on July 23 2007,15:22

Let D(x) denote the set {x,descendants of x}.  Then I argue that the following is a nested hierarchy:

Example 1:

Code Sample

               D(sam)
              /           \
D(sam's first son) D(sam's second son)


If D(x) denotes the set {x, descendants of x} you have taken away the original argument of a paternal family tree.

Ya see in your scheme the correct rendition would have D(sam, sam's first son, sam's second son), and would grow with every additional male descendant.


In a paternal family tree the father sits on top, alone

In your card example the first/ super set is all cards. Then you get rid of the aces and so on.

Also- do you see your definition of a nested hierarchy on the link provided?

< hierarchy principles >

If not I don't agree with it.


To Rob:

< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com >

I have problems getting to Alan's blog- as well as ARN.

Also I can't make out what it is you want me to reconcile.

To blipey:

I made my position clear- the FATHER does not consist of nor contain his family. The FATHER sits alone on top of a PATERNAL family tree.

In Franky's scheme the top set contains all male descendants as they are born, as well as the father.

I don't know when I'll get back, but please hold your breath...
Posted by: Joe G on July 23 2007,15:33

OK Rob- I explained it already. What part of the following don't you understand?:

A paternal family tree doesn't exist in reality because in reality it takes a male and female to make a family. Biology 101, just as I have stated several times already.

That doesn't make it fictitious. And if you think it does then there is a good reason I won't be answering any more of your questions.

Do you guys ever answer any questions pertaining to the theory of evolution or universal common descent? I mean with scientific data and such...

My point has always been if you are going to use any family tree, use the whole tree. Getting selective is deceptive.

The whole point was to show that universal common descent, which would include both parents, would predict a nested hierarchy.
Posted by: Rob on July 23 2007,15:41

Joe:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
OK Rob- I explained it already. What part of the following don't you understand?:

A paternal family tree doesn't exist in reality because in reality it takes a male and female to make a family. Biology 101, just as I have stated several times already.

That doesn't make it fictitious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The part I don't understand is how something can be nonexistent in reality and yet not be fictitious.  But I forgot that in Joe's world, anything is possible.

Edited to add:  I realize that you're aware of the fact that hierarchical paternal relationships exist, and that when you say that paternal family trees don't exist in reality and yet they're not fictitious, you're just communicating poorly.  But it's gratifying to make fun of you because you're an arrogant jerk who would rather heap insults on his opponents than try to convey his thoughts coherently.  If you were to make that effort, you might find that some of your ideas are, au fond, incoherent.

And BTW, I understand your position as well as your opponents' on the paternal tree / nested hierarchy thing, and it seems to me that any hierarchy could be considered nested if the nodes are interpreted that way.  If we interpret a node labeled "Bob" to include Bob's posterity, as franky does, then the hierarchy is nested.  If we interpret it to not include his posterity, then the hierarchy is not nested.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 23 2007,16:05

Quote (Joe G @ July 23 2007,15:22)
I have problems
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This quotemine's worthy of Sal, I think you'll agree.
Posted by: franky172 on July 23 2007,16:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If D(x) denotes the set {x, descendants of x} you have taken away the original argument of a paternal family tree.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Stop.  Do we agree that the following structure:


---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------

              D(sam)
             /           \
D(sam's first son) D(sam's second son)
---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------



forms a nested hierarchy?  A simple yes or no will suffice.  (Call this structure example 1)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ya see in your scheme the correct rendition would have D(sam, sam's first son, sam's second son), and would grow with every additional male descendant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I do not know what you mean by "correct rendition".  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In a paternal family tree the father sits on top, alone
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do we agree that example 1 forms a nested hierarchy?  Yes or no.  Do we agree that example 1 describes a "paternal family tree"?  Yes or no.
Posted by: blipey on July 23 2007,16:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Example 1:

Code Sample

              D(sam)
             /           \
D(sam's first son) D(sam's second son)

If D(x) denotes the set {x, descendants of x} you have taken away the original argument of a paternal family tree.

Ya see in your scheme the correct rendition would have D(sam, sam's first son, sam's second son), and would grow with every additional male descendant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Joe, if you have a problem with this, then why is the following not a problem?

                  D(Field Army)
                 /              \
D(Division A)                D(Division B)

An ARMY is a NH, as you have agreed, and would include all divisions A, B, C, etc.  The function D(x) here denotes all sets that include a particular level and those under it.  You have continually stated that an ARMY consists of itself and all levels under it.  How is this not represented in the above examples?
Posted by: blipey on July 23 2007,16:19

Also Joe, since this makes no sense, perhaps you can expound:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the original argument of a paternal family tree
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What do you think the argument of a paternal family tree is?

And how does this differ from what the original argument of a paternal family tree was?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 23 2007,16:21

Quote (Joe G @ July 23 2007,15:22)
I have problems getting to Alan's blog- as well as ARN.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, bcoz Alan's blog's infrastructure is provided by blogger.com who are really google.com and as we all know, their internet backbone linkage is v.poor indeed.

I mean, you'd have to put a datacentre in every town to get the kind of coverage google have got. Impossible!


From where I am my ISP goes 16 hops to blogger.com, and the only intermediary network is level3.net.

Joe, if you install < Tor > it should allow you to proxy your traffic via other routes and make any site accessible. No excuses!

30+ hops and counting to < http://www.antievolution.org. >

And as to the moderation. Perhaps I should have said arbitrary censorship instead  :p
Posted by: blipey on July 23 2007,16:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe:  

OK Rob- I explained it already. What part of the following don't you understand?:

A paternal family tree doesn't exist in reality because in reality it takes a male and female to make a family. Biology 101, just as I have stated several times already.

That doesn't make it fictitious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You see, reality demonstrates that unicorns don't exist in reality but that doesn't mean I don't have one as a pet in my room...that I feed cheesy-poofs to and buy sweaters for.

[/Joe G logic algorithm]
Posted by: Joe G on July 23 2007,16:44

Quote (franky172 @ July 23 2007,16:09)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If D(x) denotes the set {x, descendants of x} you have taken away the original argument of a paternal family tree.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Stop.  Do we agree that the following structure:


---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------

              D(sam)
             /           \
D(sam's first son) D(sam's second son)
---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------



forms a nested hierarchy?  A simple yes or no will suffice.  (Call this structure example 1)

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ya see in your scheme the correct rendition would have D(sam, sam's first son, sam's second son), and would grow with every additional male descendant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I do not know what you mean by "correct rendition".  

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In a paternal family tree the father sits on top, alone
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do we agree that example 1 forms a nested hierarchy?  Yes or no.  Do we agree that example 1 describes a "paternal family tree"?  Yes or no.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You stop Franky. If it doesn't abide by the principles of hierarchy then it isn't a nested hierarchy.

What are the defintionS for each of your levels? Male descendant is one definition and it is also part of the definition of the whole.

A correct rendition of a paternal family tree has the patriach at the top- alone.

Do you understand that?

A simple yes or no. We cannot continue until we agree on that point.

By including all male decendants into the top superset D(x) you no longer have a paternal family tree.

Do you understand that?
Posted by: Joe G on July 23 2007,16:50

Quote (blipey @ July 23 2007,16:19)
Also Joe, since this makes no sense, perhaps you can expound:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the original argument of a paternal family tree
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What do you think the argument of a paternal family tree is?

And how does this differ from what the original argument of a paternal family tree was?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ummm a "paternal family tree" has the patriach sitting on top- alone. Then all male descendants are under him.

The next level would be his closest descendants.

In Frank's scheme the top level is the patriach and all male descedants.

What part about that don't you understand?

Time isn't cheap and I've wasted too much here already.

When you have something new please drop by my blog and let me know...
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 23 2007,17:08

Quote (Joe G @ July 23 2007,16:50)
 
Quote (blipey @ July 23 2007,16:19)
Also Joe, since this makes no sense, perhaps you can expound:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the original argument of a paternal family tree
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What do you think the argument of a paternal family tree is?

And how does this differ from what the original argument of a paternal family tree was?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ummm a "paternal family tree" has the patriach sitting on top- alone. Then all male descendants are under him.

The next level would be his closest descendants.

In Frank's scheme the top level is the patriach and all male descedants.

What part about that don't you understand?

Time isn't cheap and I've wasted too much here already.

When you have something new please drop by my blog and let me know...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just "Wow". This level of obtuseness is completely unprecedented in my experience. And that is a lot of experience...
Posted by: Rob on July 23 2007,17:24

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 23 2007,16:21)
   
Quote (Joe G @ July 23 2007,15:22)
I have problems getting to Alan's blog- as well as ARN.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, bcoz Alan's blog's infrastructure is provided by blogger.com
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

who also hosts Joe's blog.
Posted by: stevestory on July 23 2007,17:47

I don't know much about this 'nested hierarchy' business so I took a look at this page. It's a little complicated.

< http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Nested_Hierarchy >
Posted by: carlsonjok on July 23 2007,18:11

Quote (stevestory @ July 23 2007,17:47)
I don't know much about this 'nested hierarchy' business so I took a look at this page. It's a little complicated.

< http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Nested_Hierarchy >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It isn't that hard, Steve.  See here, a family tree must have the wimminfolk on it, otherwise it don't make no sense.   The reason you are having a hard time with it is because you are a homo and don't get the biology of reproduction.
Posted by: blipey on July 23 2007,18:15

I'm going to take your appearance here, Joe, as evidence that you are absolutely lost and out of your league.  What evidence do I have for this?

Well, someone who is bombastic, rude, and generally a disagreeable person (look at this distinction, Joe)--BUT WHO ALSO KNOWS WHAT THE HELL THEY"RE TALKING ABOUT--generally will answer yes/no questions.  They will follow that answer up with a scathing attack on the asker, but they will answer the question because it proves they're right.

You, on the other hand, never answer yes/no questions, just skipping right to the scathing (warning: distinction coming up)--COMPLETELY UNSUPPORTED--attack.

Here's the condensed list of simple questions you need to answer.  By answering them, you will show your superior logic skills and knowledge.

1.  Precisely what part of your argument did franky172 misrepresent in my post?  Please be specific.

2.  Do we agree with the following definition of a nested hierarchy:

"A nested hierarchy is a structured set of sets, where all sets are potentially connected "above" to "parent" sets and "below" to "child" sets, such that all elements of a node's children are elements of the node.  The "top-most" node in such a structure, if it exists, has no parent and is called the "root node"."

This is tricky, Joe.  Do you or do you not agree?  You've avoided this several times.  I think it's because you don't understand the words either you or franky used.

3.  The argument in your original post appears to be that since a paternal family tree relies on only one "criteria" it is not a nested hierarchy.  Is this a correct statement of your argument?

Another very tricky yes/no question.  If we could just tart with this one, we'd have somewhere to go.  Either this is your position and we can start the discussion here.  Or, it isn't your position and we need to start somewhere else.

4.  In the following:

D(p1) -> D(p2) -> D(p3)

Does the level D(p2) consist of and contain D(p3)?

Yes or no?

5.  Do we agree that the following structure:

             D(sam)
            /           \
D(sam's first son) D(sam's second son)


forms a nested hierarchy?

6.  What do you think the argument of a paternal family tree is?  And how does this differ from what the original argument of a paternal family tree was?

Your answer here seems to say that the "argument of a paternal family tree" is that the father is on top.  In other words, we construct paternal family trees in order to figure out who the father is.  Is this a correct interpretation of your statement:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ummm a "paternal family tree" has the patriach sitting on top- alone. Then all male descendants are under him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Thanks for avoiding these with tardarific obfuscation.
Posted by: stevestory on July 23 2007,18:19

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 23 2007,19:11)
Quote (stevestory @ July 23 2007,17:47)
I don't know much about this 'nested hierarchy' business so I took a look at this page. It's a little complicated.

< http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Nested_Hierarchy >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It isn't that hard, Steve.  See here, a family tree must have the wimminfolk on it, otherwise it don't make no sense.   The reason you are having a hard time with it is because you are a homo and don't get the biology of reproduction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


:p
Posted by: Rob on July 23 2007,18:22

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 23 2007,18:11)
Quote (stevestory @ July 23 2007,17:47)
I don't know much about this 'nested hierarchy' business so I took a look at this page. It's a little complicated.

< http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Nested_Hierarchy >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It isn't that hard, Steve.  See here, a family tree must have the wimminfolk on it, otherwise it don't make no sense.   The reason you are having a hard time with it is because you are a homo and don't get the biology of reproduction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Plus he's a chauvinist!

I'm just kidding, but Joe is < not >:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What I will say about any "paternal family tree" is it demonstrates chauvinism.

By blipey's insistent use of a "paternal family tree" we could safely infer he is a chauvinist as well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: blipey on July 23 2007,18:24

That's as may be, but I like really big breasts; I get points for that, right?
Posted by: blipey on July 23 2007,18:28

This does bring up a question for me, Joe.  Do you believe that a maternal family tree is a nested hierarchy?

Or, perhaps we should start with an easier question?

Do you believe that a maternal family tree is a real construct?  If you do, I'll be more than happy to continue the argument using this completely and radically different structure.
Posted by: franky172 on July 23 2007,19:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You stop Franky. If it doesn't abide by the principles of hierarchy then it isn't a nested hierarchy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I have asked you a simple question.  Do you think this is a nested hierarchy:



---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------

             D(sam)
            /           \
D(sam's first son) D(sam's second son)

---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------



This is a straightforward question.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What are the defintionS for each of your levels? Male descendant is one definition and it is also part of the definition of the whole.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I do not understand your statement.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A correct rendition of a paternal family tree has the patriach at the top- alone.

Do you understand that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is true that in typical renditions of "family trees" we replace the notation D(sam) with simply "Sam", but this is merely shorthand - we understand that the lines connecting different people are shorthand for "descendent of" and we can interpret the names shown on the treee as belonging to the unique individual whose position is at each node.  I.e. the shorthand:



---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------

      Sam
     /   \
   Bill Steve

---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------


Means that Bill and Steve are descendents of Sam, and in terms of the "descendent" relationship, this structure forms a nested hierarchy since we are using an implicit shorthand for:



---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------

      D(Sam)
     /   \
   D(Bill) D(Steve)

---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A simple yes or no. We cannot continue until we agree on that point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It depends what you mean by "patriarchal family tree", typically we use shorthand to represent the nested hierarchical structure that descent from a common ancestor leads to, and we simply write "X" at each node of a tree.  This is for many reasons, one of which is simplicity of notation.  That the relationship of "descended from" forms a nested hierarchical structure is not, I believe, in dispute, so what you appear to be arguing over is notation.  Do we agree that we can sort the descendents of a person into a nested hierarchy, and that with slight change of notation this structure is identical to the colloquial "family tree"?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By including all male decendants into the top superset D(x) you no longer have a paternal family tree.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I believe that the notation D(x) explicitly shows that decent-based relationships form nested hierarchies, regardless of whatever definition of "paternal family tree" you want to use.  Do we agree?

Now that I have answered your questions, there are several questions that have been posed to you that remain unanswered.  Would you do us the favor of answering them?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on July 23 2007,20:15

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 23 2007,18:11)
Quote (stevestory @ July 23 2007,17:47)
I don't know much about this 'nested hierarchy' business so I took a look at this page. It's a little complicated.

< http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Nested_Hierarchy >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It isn't that hard, Steve.  See here, a family tree must have the wimminfolk on it, otherwise it don't make no sense.   The reason you are having a hard time with it is because you are a homo and don't get the biology of reproduction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hang on there -- I thought that wimminfolk came from a  guy's rib, anyway.

So there'd be just one dude at the top of the family line anyway, no . . . . ?
Posted by: Zachriel on July 23 2007,21:49

Quote (stevestory @ July 23 2007,17:47)
I don't know much about this 'nested hierarchy' business so I took a look at this page. It's a little complicated.

< http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Nested_Hierarchy >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just to draw a distinction; in mathematics, a nested hierarchy is an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset. This definition would include leaves on an archetypal tree grouped naturally by branch and limb; an orthodox military organization; or even an arbitrary but carefully devised classification scheme. In biology, it refers specifically to the observed nested hierarchy of taxonomic traits.

Quote (franky172 @ July 23 2007,19:47)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You stop Franky. If it doesn't abide by the principles of hierarchy then it isn't a nested hierarchy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have asked you a simple question.  Do you think this is a nested hierarchy:



---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------

             D(sam)
            /           \
D(sam's first son) D(sam's second son)

---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------


This is a straightforward question.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe G's problem is far more fundamental than that. Joe G doesn't have a clear understanding as to what is meant by a "set" or even if the < contents of my pocket > can be considered as a set. Hence, discussions of subsets, supersets, nested sets, empty sets, much less how we can recognize a taxonomy are well beyond his kin. Nor does he recognize his limitation in this regard.

(That was the thread that led to my banning by < arbitrary demand >.)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Joe G >:  A paternal family tree doesn't exist in reality
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apparently, Joe G doesn't know who is in the set of {his males descendants} or the set of {his father's male descendants}.
Posted by: blipey on July 23 2007,23:27



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That the relationship of "descended from" forms a nested hierarchical structure is not, I believe, in dispute, so what you appear to be arguing over is notation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



emphasis added to clearly denote Joe's wonder-dumbness

Actually, I believe this is exactly what Joe is disputing.  Which makes my earlier claim that he is the only person in the world who disputes this fairly plausible.

I'm still waiting for contact by all those people who agree with you, Joe.  Send them by; have them drop a comment.  It doesn't even have to be multiple people.  One person, anyone, who agrees with you will do.  Please produce this person.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 24 2007,06:41

Steve,

Ken Cox's < Post of the Month > explains nested hierarchies and twin nested hierarchies.
Posted by: Joe G on July 24 2007,09:25

One more time-

With a paternal family tree the patriach sits at the top node/ level all alone.

In Franky's scheme all male descedants of x, including x also sit at the top node/ level.

IOW Franky's scheme is NOT a paternal family tree.

Franky172 has changed the idea of a paternal family tree to a scheme of all male descendants of x, including x.

But is that scheme a nested hierarchy?

A reminder of the rules of hierarchy:

< Principles of Hierarchy Theory >:

With a paternal family tree the sets are determined by ONE AND ONLY ONE criterion- "who's your daddy?"

Hierarchical levels: levels are populated by entities whose properties characterize the level in question.

Note the word "properties".

Level of organization: this type of level fits into its hierarchy by virtue of set of definitions that lock the level in question to those above and below.

Note the words "set of definitions"

The ordering of levels: there are several criteria whereby other levels reside above lower levels.

Note the words "several criteria".

To re-iterarte- With a paternal family tree levels are determined by ONE and only ONE criterion- “Who’s your daddy?”



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nested and non-nested hierarchies: nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels. Non-nested hierarchies are more general in that the requirement of containment of lower levels is relaxed. For example, an army consists of a collection of soldiers and is made up of them. Thus an army is a nested hierarchy. On the other hand, the general at the top of a military command does not consist of his soldiers and so the military command is a non-nested hierarchy with regard to the soldiers in the army. Pecking orders and a food chains are also non-nested hierarchies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now in a scheme of all male descendants of x, including x what would be the properties that characterize the level in question?

What are the set of definitions that lock a level in question to those above and below it?

What are the several criteria whereby other levels reside above lower levels?

And for the clincher- what is done to the male descendants that are born of female descendants? How are they tied to the top level?

Questions like these arise and usually go unanswered when people, who don't know what they are doing, try to establish something anyway.

And now Zachriel chimes in with his lies.

Isn't life wonderful!!!!

Have fun wallowing in whatever it is you guys wallow in...
Posted by: Joe G on July 24 2007,09:31

To Franky172:

In your scenario D(sam) would really be D(sam, sam’s first son, sam’s first grandson). So we would have D(sam, sam’s first son, sam’s first grandson)-> D(sam’s first son, sam’s first grandson)-> D(sam’s first grandson).

D(sam) only exists in the absence of all male descendants.

IOW you can't even draw your scheme correctly. So either you are dishonest or not too bright.

Either way it demonstrates that it is a waste of time trying to discuss this with you.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on July 24 2007,09:36

Joe, do you still tell people you're a qualified scientist because your degree says "Bachelor of Science, Engineering Technology"?

:D  :D  :D
Posted by: Joe G on July 24 2007,09:39

For Zachriel to ignore again:

< Why Set Theory is irrelevant when discussing Nested Hierarchy >

When talking about set theory any sets and subsequent subsets, apart from nested hierarchy, you can have items from one set by included with items from another set on the same level.

With set theory in general anything can be a set. Just put whatever you want in {} and you have a set. Or if you can't find {} just declare what you want to be in a set. Then all subsets are just that set and/ or that set minus any number of items.

For example with Zachriel's paternal family tree I can make a set of {Sharif Hussein bin Ali, Abdul Ilah,Faisal}. A subset would then be {Sharif Hussein bin Ali, Failsal}. It is a valid set and it is a valid subset. However neither make sense in a nested hierarchy.

In a nested hierarchy we can NOT have two sets on the same level that contain items that can exist in either set. Also all subsets must be strictly contained within the set above it.

In nested hierarchy each set and each level are specifically defined by several criteria. This is done such that a person can pick an item from one set, hand it to another person, and from the specifications be able to replace the item in its original set.

That is why when you are talking about nested hierarchy and someone tries to divert the attention to set theory they are up to nothing but deception.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on July 24 2007,10:17

C'mon Joe, don't be shy!  Give us some of that vintage tard, the stuff you posted at EvC Forums as "John Paul" (before you got banned that it  ;) )

Tell us how the Himalayas were formed by the continents crashing together at 45 MPH.

Tell us about how all the pyramids in Egypt were built after the FLUD.

Tell us about how Woodmorappe's Noah's Ark study is such a sound scientific document

Tell us about the alien cities on the Moon and Mars

We want the tard!  We want the tard!  :p  :p  :p
Posted by: blipey on July 24 2007,10:31

Please reread your last post, Joe.

Then tell us how an ARMY fits in.  Specifically, I would be interested in the reconcilliation of the following:

1.  In a nested hierarchy we can NOT have two sets on the same level that contain items that can exist in either set.

AND

2.  All levels of ARMY (ie FIELD ARMY) consist of and CONTAIN all lower levels.

AND

3.  How this is different than than:

    D(sam)
           /           \
D(sam's first son) D(sam's second son)

Great.
Posted by: Joe G on July 24 2007,11:05

It is obvious that Franky172 doesn't realize that his:

D{x, all male descendabts of x} translates to D(sam) only when Sam doesn't have any male descendants!!!

Once Sam has a male descendant the scheme looks like:

D(sam, sam's first male descendant)
|
D(sam's first male descdendant)

When the next male descenfdant arrives the scheme changes to, oops we may have a problem without specifically defined levels:

____D(sam, sam's first male descendant, sam's second male descendant)

The definition of levels is key here. Would the first level below the starting node od D{x, all male descendants of x} be reserved for Sam's sons?

What happens when Sam's first male descendant isn't Sam's son but the son of one of Sam's daughters?

Without well-defined levels any alleged "nested hierarchy" dissolves into jibberish.

To blipey- the answers are in my posts.

To figure out if Franky's scheme is a nested hierarchy try answering the questions I posed.

To OA- you are a tard. If you want tard just wake-up.
Posted by: Joe G on July 24 2007,11:18

It's like this blipey:

                D(sam)
              /           \
D(sam's first son) D(sam's second son)

SHOULD be written as:

D(sam, sam's first son, sam's second son)
               /           \
D(sam's first son) D(sam's second son)


That you refuse to understand that simple fact does more to your credibility than anything I could ever say.

Thank you once again.

Gotta run, lunch is here...
Posted by: franky172 on July 24 2007,11:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In Franky's scheme all male descedants of x, including x also sit at the top node/ level.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What does it mean to "sit at the top node"?  That the set D(sam) includes all of Sam's descendents?  I agree.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But is that scheme a nested hierarchy?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I have asked you on several offasions to answer whether or not you think the scheme is a nested hierarchy.  You refuse to answer.  Why is that?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
With a paternal family tree the sets are determined by ONE AND ONLY ONE criterion- "who's your daddy?"

Hierarchical levels: levels are populated by entities whose properties characterize the level in question.

Note the word "properties".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I will ask again: your argument appears to be that a nested hierarchy can not be formed using a single relationship, because this is not plural "properties".  Is this a valid restatement of your argument?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Note the words "set of definitions"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I will ask again: your argument appeats to be that a nested hierarchy can not be formed using a single relationship, because this is not a plural "definitions".  Is this a valid restatement of your argument?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The ordering of levels: there are several criteria whereby other levels reside above lower levels.

Note the words "several criteria".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I will ask again: your argument appeats to be that a nested hierarchy can not be formed using a single relationship, because this is not a plural "several criteria".  Is this a valid restatement of your argument?

To re-iterarte- With a paternal family tree levels are determined by ONE and only ONE criterion- “Who’s your daddy?”



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now in a scheme of all male descendants of x, including x what would be the properties that characterize the level in question?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The level in question is the set of all descendents of x.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What are the set of definitions that lock a level in question to those above and below it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Above: "direct male ancestor of"



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What are the several criteria whereby other levels reside above lower levels?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Below: "direct male descendant of"



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And for the clincher- what is done to the male descendants that are born of female descendants? How are they tied to the top level?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't understand your question or it's relevance.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Questions like these arise and usually go unanswered when people, who don't know what they are doing, try to establish something anyway.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is true, but not in the way you intend.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In your scenario D(sam) would really be D(sam, sam’s first son, sam’s first grandson). So we would have D(sam, sam’s first son, sam’s first grandson)-> D(sam’s first son, sam’s first grandson)-> D(sam’s first grandson).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I do not understand your statement.  What does it mean for D(sam) to "really be" D(sam, sam's first son, ...)?  What does it mean for a definition of a set to "really be" something else?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Either way it demonstrates that it is a waste of time trying to discuss this with you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I noticed that I answered all of the questions you have posed to me, and you have steadfastly refused to answer all of the questions posed to you.  Simple "yes" "no" answers will suffice, Joe.
Posted by: franky172 on July 24 2007,11:47

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,11:18)
It's like this blipey:

                D(sam)
              /           \
D(sam's first son) D(sam's second son)

SHOULD be written as:

D(sam, sam's first son, sam's second son)
               /           \
D(sam's first son) D(sam's second son)


That you refuse to understand that simple fact does more to your credibility than anything I could ever say.

Thank you once again.

Gotta run, lunch is here...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have defined the following:

D(x) = {s: s = x, or s is a male descendant of x}

So it's not clear what you mean by:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
SHOULD be written as:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Zachriel on July 24 2007,12:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Zachriel: A nested hierarchy is an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset.

< Joe G >: EXACTLY!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,09:39)
For Zachriel to ignore again:

< Why Set Theory is irrelevant when discussing Nested Hierarchy >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, even though a nested hierarchy is defined in terms of sets, subsets and supersets; set theory has nothing to do with it.
Posted by: Zachriel on July 24 2007,12:33

This is a royal, paternal family tree. It has biological, social, political, financial and cultural significance.



We define "Sons" to mean all male descendents.

 Sons of Abdullah = {Talal, Neyef, Hussein I, Muhammad, El Hassan, Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah}
 Sons of Talal = {Hussein I, Muhammad, El Hassan, Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah}
 Sons of Hussein I = {Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah}
 Sons of each other element = empty set

This is a nested hierarchy based on paternal relationships. The nested hierarchy of the Sons of Abdullah is strictly contained within the nested hierarchy of Sons of Sharif Hussein bin Ali.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 24 2007,13:06

So what's your ultimate point Joe? That god did it?
Posted by: Joe G on July 24 2007,13:29

Quote (Zachriel @ July 24 2007,12:33)
This is a royal, paternal family tree. It has biological, social, political, financial and cultural significance.



We define "Sons" to mean all male descendents.

 Sons of Abdullah = {Talal, Neyef, Hussein I, Muhammad, El Hassan, Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah}
 Sons of Talal = {Hussein I, Muhammad, El Hassan, Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah}
 Sons of Hussein I = {Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah}
 Sons of each other element = empty set

This is a nested hierarchy based on paternal relationships. The nested hierarchy of the Sons of Abdullah is strictly contained within the nested hierarchy of Sons of Sharif Hussein bin Ali.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nested and non-nested hierarchies: nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels.

The "set" at the top of Zachriel's "tree" is Abdullah. If you look at the diagram closely you will see only his name.

That "set" does NOT include all the other sets-> it does not include all male descendants. Perhaps that is what the "tree" as a whole is trying to do, but that is not the point. The point is the SET at the top level maust consist of and contain all the sets in the levels below it.

Period, end of story.

Now if you want to call the top node/ level {Abdullah and all his male descendants} that is another story. But then you are not representing a paternal family tree.

A paternal family tree has the patriach, all alone, at the top node. Just as Zachriel's diagram shows.

Also Zachriel set theory is irrelevant for the reasons provided. Anything can be a set but not all sets can be a nested hierarchy.

Thank you for continuing to ignore them.

Sorry Franky- if you haven't figured it out by now I can't help you. Perhaps someday you will. Good luck with that...
Posted by: Joe G on July 24 2007,13:37

For Franky:

If you have a scheme of x and all male descendants ox x, with x also being a male, what happens when one generation is of all females, who then have sons?

How do you connect them back to the top node? In all of your schemes you have the level below directly linked to someone in the level above. In my scenario there isn't anyone above to link to. It would have to be directly linked to the top node, or just left there hanging in oblivion.

Also if:

That the set D(sam) includes all of Sam's descendents?

Then you do not have a paternal family tree.

IOW you are changing things to suit your outcome.

Thank you for the demonstration. That speaks more than words.
Posted by: carlsonjok on July 24 2007,13:37

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,13:29)
The "set" at the top of Zachriel's "tree" is Abdullah. If you look at the diagram closely you will see only his name.

That "set" does NOT include all the other sets-> it does not include all male descendants.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe, please see the following definition provided by Franky:

 
Quote (franky172 @ July 24 2007,11:47)

I have defined the following:

D(x) = {s: s = x, or s is a male descendant of x}


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


If you set x="Abdullah" your definition of a nested heirarchy is exactly the same as Franky's and Zach's.
Posted by: Joe G on July 24 2007,13:39

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 24 2007,13:06)
So what's your ultimate point Joe? That god did it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope.

Is your ultimate point that we owe our existence to sheer dumb luck? It must be because in the absence of intelligent design or a Special Creation, that is all you have.
Posted by: Joe G on July 24 2007,13:42

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 24 2007,13:37)
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,13:29)
The "set" at the top of Zachriel's "tree" is Abdullah. If you look at the diagram closely you will see only his name.

That "set" does NOT include all the other sets-> it does not include all male descendants.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe, please see the following definition provided by Franky:

   
Quote (franky172 @ July 24 2007,11:47)

I have defined the following:

D(x) = {s: s = x, or s is a male descendant of x}


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


If you set x="Abdullah" your definition of a nested heirarchy is exactly the same as Franky's and Zach's.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's ONE definition. A nested hierarchy requires several, and only sometimes will one apply.

These are the rules:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hierarchy: in mathematical terms, it is a partially ordered set. In less austere terms, a hierarchy is a collection of parts with ordered asymmetric relationships inside a whole. That is to say, upper levels are above lower levels, and the relationship upwards is asymmetric with the relationships downwards.

Hierarchical levels: levels are populated by entities whose properties characterize the level in question. A given entity may belong to any number of levels, depending on the criteria used to link levels above and below. For example, an individual human being may be a member of the level i) human, ii) primate, iii) organism or iv) host of a parasite, depending on the relationship of the level in question to those above and below.

Level of organization: this type of level fits into its hierarchy by virtue of set of definitions that lock the level in question to those above and below. For example, a biological population level is an aggregate of entities from the organism level of organization, but it is only so by definition. There is no particular scale involved in the population level of organization, in that some organisms are larger than some populations, as in the case of skin parasites.

Level of observation: this type of level fits into its hierarchy by virtue of relative scaling considerations. For example, the host of a skin parasite represents the context for the population of parasites; it is a landscape, even though the host may be seen as belonging to a level of organization, organism, that is lower than the collection of parasites, a population.

The criterion for observation: when a system is observed, there are two separate considerations. One is the spatiotemporal scale at which the observations are made. The other is the criterion for observation, which defines the system in the foreground away from all the rest in the background. The criterion for observation uses the types of parts and their relationships to each other to characterize the system in the foreground. If criteria for observation are linked together in an asymmetric fashion, then the criteria lead to levels of organization. Otherwise, criteria for observation merely generate isolated classes.

The ordering of levels: there are several criteria whereby other levels reside above lower levels. These criteria often run in parallel, but sometimes only one or a few of them apply. Upper levels are above lower levels by virtue of: 1) being the context of, 2) offering constraint to, 3) behaving more slowly at a lower frequency than, 4) being populated by entities with greater integrity and higher bond strength than, and 5), containing and being made of - lower levels.

Nested and non-nested hierarchies: nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels. Non-nested hierarchies are more general in that the requirement of containment of lower levels is relaxed. For example, an army consists of a collection of soldiers and is made up of them. Thus an army is a nested hierarchy. On the other hand, the general at the top of a military command does not consist of his soldiers and so the military command is a non-nested hierarchy with regard to the soldiers in the army. Pecking orders and a food chains are also non-nested hierarchies.

Duality in hierarchies: the dualism in hierarchies appears to come from a set of complementarities that line up with: observer-observed, process-structure, rate-dependent versus rate-independent, and part-whole. Arthur Koestler in his "Ghost in The Machine" referred to the notion of holon, which means an entity in a hierarchy that is at once a whole and at the same time a part. Thus a holon at once operates as a quasi-autonomous whole that integrates its parts, while working to integrate itself into an upper level purpose or role. The lower level answers the question "How?" and the upper level answers the question, "So what?"

Constraint versus possibilities: when one looks at a system there are two separate reasons behind what one sees. First, it is not possible to see something if the parts of the system cannot do what is required of them to achieve the arrangement in the whole. These are the limits of physical possibility. The limits of possibility come from lower levels in the hierarchy. The second entirely separate reason for what one sees is to do with what is allowed by the upper level constraints. An example here would be that mammals have five digits. There is no physical reason for mammals having five digits on their hands and feet, because it comes not from physical limits, but from the constraints of having a mammal heritage. Any number of the digits is possible within the physical limits, but in mammals only five digits are allowed by the biological constraints. Constraints come from above, while the limits as to what is possible come from below. The concept of hierarchy becomes confused unless one makes the distinction between limits from below and limits from above. The distinction between mechanisms below and purposes above turn on the issue of constraint versus possibility. Forget the distinction, and biology becomes pointlessly confused, impossibly complicated chemistry, while chemistry becomes unwieldy physics.

Complexity and self-simplification: Howard Pattee has identified that as a system becomes more elaborately hierarchical its behavior becomes simple. The reason is that, with the emergence of intermediate levels, the lowest level entities become constrained to be far from equilibrium. As a result, the lowest level entities lose degrees of freedom and are held against the upper level constraint to give constant behavior. Deep hierarchical structure indicates elaborate organization, and deep hierarchies are often considered as complex systems by virtue of hierarchical depth.

Complexity versus complicatedness: a hierarchical structure with a large number of lowest level entities, but with simple organization, offers a low flat hierarchy that is complicated rather than complex. The behavior of structurally complicated systems is behaviorally elaborate and so complicated, whereas the behavior of deep hierarchically complex systems is simple.

Hierarchy theory is as much as anything a theory of observation. It has been significantly operationalized in ecology, but has been applied relatively infrequently outside that science. There is a negative reaction to hierarchy theory in the social sciences, by virtue of implications of rigid autocratic systems or authority. When applied in a more general fashion, even liberal and non-authoritarian systems can be described effectively in hierarchical terms. There is a politically correct set of labels that avoid the word hierarchy, but they unnecessarily introduce jargon into a field that has enough special vocabulary as it is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not what Franky or Zachriel claim they are.
Posted by: franky172 on July 24 2007,14:07

For what feels like the fifth time, you have not answered my question.  Is the following a nested hierarchy:



---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------

               D(sam)
             /           \
D(sam's first son) D(sam's second son)

---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------


Yes or no, Joe.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you have a scheme of x and all male descendants ox x, with x also being a male, what happens when one generation is of all females, who then have sons?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It depends on how you want to define the tree that forms a "patriarchal family tree".  Assume Sam has a son, and a daughter and the daughter has a son, "Sam's second grandson".  The following is a set of "male decsendents of Sam":



---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------

--------------------D(sam)
--------------/-----------------\
------------D(sam's son)---------\
-------------/-------------------\
---D(sam's first grandson)----D(sam's second grand son)

---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------



If we define a "paternal family tree" as a set of relations linked by sons, you might simply ignore any descendents of females, so the tree might end at a certain point.  How do you define "paternal family tree", Joe?  In your world does a paternal family tree include all male offspring?  Or only trace continual male lineages through time?  Depending on your answer to this you should be able to answer your own question.  (You can feel free to answer this question Joe, it's been a while since you answered any questions it seems.).

How would you like to define the operator "D", Joe?  (Here is another question you should answer.)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That the set D(sam) includes all of Sam's descendents?
Then you do not have a paternal family tree.
IOW you are changing things to suit your outcome.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't understand what you mean.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's ONE definition. A nested hierarchy requires several, and only sometimes will one apply.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have no idea what you are talking about.
Posted by: franky172 on July 24 2007,14:08

One more time Joe:



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

It depends what you mean by "patriarchal family tree", typically we use shorthand to represent the nested hierarchical structure that descent from a common ancestor leads to, and we simply write "X" at each node of a tree.  This is for many reasons, one of which is simplicity of notation.  That the relationship of "descended from" forms a nested hierarchical structure is not, I believe, in dispute, so what you appear to be arguing over is notation.  Do we agree that we can sort the descendents of a person into a nested hierarchy, and that with slight change of notation this structure is identical to the colloquial "family tree"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 24 2007,14:30

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,13:39)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 24 2007,13:06)
So what's your ultimate point Joe? That god did it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope.

Is your ultimate point that we owe our existence to sheer dumb luck? It must be because in the absence of intelligent design or a Special Creation, that is all you have.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And in the absence of any actual evidence at all for your position all you have is blind faith.

What's so very terrible about owing our existence to sheer dumb luck? Are you afraid that your inner urges will become too powerful to resist if you are not held back by the thought of eternal torture and damnation?

Give me sheer dumb luck any day. Except I don't really believe in luck either. No devils following you round, ruining your day, or whatever mechanism you think applies luck. And that's in addition to the mystery being that you obviously think is required for the safe running of a universe! Do you believe in leprechauns Joe? There's more evidence for them then your intelligent designer.

And dumb? Define intelligence Joe, and then we'll talk about dumb.

So, having removed all the silly rhetorical devices you hide your insecurity with we are left with

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is your ultimate point that we owe our existence to      ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

or
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is your ultimate point that we owe our existence to sheer chance?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Either way, I don't see how your explanation ("special creation" or "intelligent design") is anything other then a slightly longer way of saying "don't know, don't want to know".

Intelligent Design==Don't know
Special Creation==Don't know
Real Science==Don't know but know how I think I might be able to find out or make a start anyways, or die trying.
Posted by: Zachriel on July 24 2007,15:10

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,13:29)
         
Quote (Zachriel @ July 24 2007,12:33)
This is a royal, paternal family tree. It has biological, social, political, financial and cultural significance.



We define "Sons" to mean all male descendents.

 Sons of Abdullah = {Talal, Neyef, Hussein I, Muhammad, El Hassan, Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah}
 Sons of Talal = {Hussein I, Muhammad, El Hassan, Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah}
 Sons of Hussein I = {Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah}
 Sons of each other element = empty set

This is a nested hierarchy based on paternal relationships. The nested hierarchy of the Sons of Abdullah is strictly contained within the nested hierarchy of Sons of Sharif Hussein bin Ali.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nested and non-nested hierarchies: nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels.

The "set" at the top of Zachriel's "tree" is Abdullah. If you look at the diagram closely you will see only his name.

That "set" does NOT include all the other sets-> it does not include all male descendants. Perhaps that is what the "tree" as a whole is trying to do, but that is not the point. The point is the SET at the top level maust consist of and contain all the sets in the levels below it.

Period, end of story.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I defined no set called Abdullah. I did define a set called Sons of Abdullah. It consists of every male descendency of Abdullah. The Sons of Hussein I is strictly contained within the Sons of Talal is strictly contained within the Sons of Abdullah.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 24 2007,16:10

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,13:39)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 24 2007,13:06)
So what's your ultimate point Joe? That god did it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe claimed to be a Muslim once, so perhaps his position is Allahdidit.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 24 2007,16:15

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 24 2007,14:30)
   
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,13:39)
     
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 24 2007,13:06)
So what's your ultimate point Joe? That god did it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope.

Is your ultimate point that we owe our existence to sheer dumb luck? It must be because in the absence of intelligent design or a Special Creation, that is all you have.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And in the absence of any actual evidence at all for your position all you have is blind faith.

What's so very terrible about owing our existence to sheer dumb luck? Are you afraid that your inner urges will become too powerful to resist if you are not held back by the thought of eternal torture and damnation?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you. I was working up some kind of response along these lines but you beat me to it.
Posted by: guthrie on July 24 2007,17:08

I just wasted five minutes trying to work out what the argument was about, and all I can see is that joe G doesn't make any sense.
Posted by: Joe G on July 24 2007,18:25

Enough with the hints. It’s apparent I will just have to cut to it.

It was first posited that a paternal family tree, which Zachriel posted as having a father, alone at the top level as the patriarch, is a nested hierarchy.

It was then shown that a patriarch does not consist of nor contain his male descendants. That wasn’t enough.

Now that has evolved to the top level being whoever you choose, as well as all of that person’s male descendants. Each subsequent level has some male descendant(s) occupying it. D(x):x={x, all male descendants of x}.

All along I have dropping hints.

blipey spewed that I was saying “fathers have fathers” so it isn’t a nested hierarchy. So close and yet so far

I kept hinting at the female side of the equation. That has fallen of deaf ears. Not my fault.

So here it is:

If all sons have mothers, and all mothers have fathers, how many hierarchies does Sam’s son- D(sam)->D(sam’s first son)- belong to?

HINT: He is the descendant of two potentially unrelated men- his father and his mother’s father.

Maybe your tree has your father and your mother’s father as the same guy. Otherwise you have a violation as the sets are no longer contained.

Can one soldier belong to two different squads or two different divisions at the same time?

Can a human belong to two phyla?




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And in the absence of any actual evidence at all for your position all you have is blind faith.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There's plenty of evidence for my position. There isn't any evidence which shows that sheer dumb luck can bring this all together.





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What's so very terrible about owing our existence to sheer dumb luck? Are you afraid that your inner urges will become too powerful to resist if you are not held back by the thought of eternal torture and damnation?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't care about damnation or eternal salvation. If it exists it is beyond me.

However owing our existence to sheer dumb luck pretty much takes the science out of it.

Perhaps that is what we should teach our kids. But how do we test sheer dumb luck?

Is saying that Stonehenge was designed "giving up"? Do archaeologists "give up" when they determine an object is an artifact?

Reality tells us it matters a great deal to any investigation whether or not the object/ event in question occurred via design (intent)/ agency or if it was just nature, operating freely.
Posted by: Joe G on July 24 2007,18:30

Zachriel,

In your diagram Sharif Hussein bin Ali sits ALONE at the top of his paternal family tree. I apologize for the name confusion earlier.

I don't care what trickonomics you want to throw around. Go sell crazy someplace else, obviously they have enough here.

The patriarch always sits alone on top of his family tree. He never consists of nor contains his descendants.
Posted by: Joe G on July 24 2007,18:34

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 24 2007,16:10)
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,13:39)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 24 2007,13:06)
So what's your ultimate point Joe? That god did it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe claimed to be a Muslim once, so perhaps his position is Allahdidit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was a christian once also.

Intelligent Design makes it possible to be an intellectually fullfilled atheist. It has absolutely no attachments to the divine what-so-ever.

If all religions were falsified tomorrow ID wouldn't be fazed. If the Bible were to be proven a hoax, ID wouldn't flinch.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on July 24 2007,18:36

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,18:34)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 24 2007,16:10)
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,13:39)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 24 2007,13:06)
So what's your ultimate point Joe? That god did it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe claimed to be a Muslim once, so perhaps his position is Allahdidit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was a christian once also.

Intelligent Design makes it possible to be an intellectually fullfilled atheist. It has absolutely no attachments to the divine what-so-ever.

If all religions were falsified tomorrow ID wouldn't be fazed. If the Bible were to be proven a hoax, ID wouldn't flinch.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uh huh. So tell me, who was the designer if it wasn't god?

Who designed them?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 24 2007,18:54

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,18:34)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 24 2007,16:10)
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,13:39)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 24 2007,13:06)
So what's your ultimate point Joe? That god did it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe claimed to be a Muslim once, so perhaps his position is Allahdidit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was a christian once also.

Intelligent Design makes it possible to be an intellectually fullfilled atheist. It has absolutely no attachments to the divine what-so-ever.

If all religions were falsified tomorrow ID wouldn't be fazed. If the Bible were to be proven a hoax, ID wouldn't flinch.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What, then, is the essential defining difference that separates "god" from "the intelligent designer" exactly?

If the two terms are not interchangeable, then why not? I see no reason, and you've provided none so far.
Posted by: Zachriel on July 24 2007,19:26

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,18:30)
Zachriel,

In your diagram Sharif Hussein bin Ali sits ALONE at the top of his paternal family tree. I apologize for the name confusion earlier.

I don't care what trickonomics you want to throw around. Go sell crazy someplace else, obviously they have enough here.

The patriarch always sits alone on top of his family tree. He never consists of nor contains his descendants.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Any non-trivial subset of a nested hierarchy is also a nested hierarchy. The leaves on an archetypal tree are a nested hierarchy by branch and limb, while each limb is a nested hierarchy by branch and stem. If you cut a limb, any branch descended from the limb is also cut from the trunk. (Contrariwise, spider webs are not nested hierarchies. If you cut an arbitrary thread, the rest of the web will probably hold.)

Paternity is an important aspect of inheritance. The real-life paternity I provided only includes father-son relationships. Here is a list of the elements of each set based on paternal relationship such that you can examine the elements of each set and verify the nesting.

 Sons of Abdullah = {Talal, Nayef, Hussein I, Muhammad, El Hassan, Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah}
 Sons of Talal = {Hussein I, Muhammad, El Hassan, Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah}
 Sons of Hussein I = {Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah}

Any element in Sons of Hussein I will be found in Sons of Talal. Any element in Sons of Talal will be found in Sons of Abdullah.

     
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,13:37)
If you have a scheme of x and all male descendants ox x, with x also being a male, what happens when one generation is of all females, who then have sons?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





If a father has only daughters, then the paternal inheritance ends. This is a common issue in many traditional societies (e.g. Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice).  If you include female descendents and allow crosses between "kissing cousins", then you would not have a consistent nested hierarchy. A complete family tree including marriages is not a nested hierarchy, but a crossing of separate lineages.

Of course, your misunderstanding is far more fundamental. You consistently refuse to respond to arguments, while never failing to cast aspersions.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on July 24 2007,19:27

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,18:34)
Intelligent Design makes it possible to be an intellectually fullfilled atheist. It has absolutely no attachments to the divine what-so-ever.

If all religions were falsified tomorrow ID wouldn't be fazed. If the Bible were to be proven a hoax, ID wouldn't flinch.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So the designer is a space alien . . . . . ?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 24 2007,19:38

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,18:34)
Intelligent Design makes it possible to be an intellectually fullfilled atheist. It has absolutely no attachments to the divine what-so-ever.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Uh huh.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Intelligent design should be understood as the evidence that God has placed in nature to show that the physical world is the product of intelligence and not simply the result of mindless material forces" - William Dembski

"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."- William Dembski
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yawn.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If all religions were falsified tomorrow ID wouldn't be fazed. If the Bible were to be proven a hoax, ID wouldn't flinch.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So the designer is a space alien . . . . . ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe Joe is horribly worried about what would happen to the morality of our society if everyone stopped believing in space aliens.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on July 24 2007,19:45

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 24 2007,19:38)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If all religions were falsified tomorrow ID wouldn't be fazed. If the Bible were to be proven a hoax, ID wouldn't flinch.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So the designer is a space alien . . . . . ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe Joe is horribly worried about what would happen to the morality of our society if everyone stopped believing in space aliens.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, if ID doesn't have anything to do with religion, no sirree Bob, I'm a little curious as to, um, why all the IDers keep bitching and moaning about "materialism" . . . ?

I'm also a little curious as to whether the designer itself evolved (since it's not, ya know, divine or anything) or if it was itself designed by, uh, another designer  . . . . . ?

Joe?


I find it hysterically funny to watch the mental gymnastics that IDers put themselves through just to avoid saying out loud what everybody *already knows anyway*.  (snicker)  (giggle)
Posted by: Joe G on July 24 2007,19:57

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 24 2007,18:36)
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,18:34)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 24 2007,16:10)
 
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,13:39)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 24 2007,13:06)
So what's your ultimate point Joe? That god did it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe claimed to be a Muslim once, so perhaps his position is Allahdidit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was a christian once also.

Intelligent Design makes it possible to be an intellectually fullfilled atheist. It has absolutely no attachments to the divine what-so-ever.

If all religions were falsified tomorrow ID wouldn't be fazed. If the Bible were to be proven a hoax, ID wouldn't flinch.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uh huh. So tell me, who was the designer if it wasn't god?

Who designed them?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does it matter who/ what the designer is?

Can we, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, determine the presence of design?

It's already obvious it matters to an investigation.

Also only once we can examine said designer(s) can we make any scientific determination about it/ them.

Right now all we have is the data observed and observable in this universe. And we ask, did nature, operating freely cause it (sheer dumb luck) or are we part of some purposeful arrangement, ie some grand design?

How can we tell?
Posted by: Joe G on July 24 2007,20:01

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 24 2007,19:45)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 24 2007,19:38)
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If all religions were falsified tomorrow ID wouldn't be fazed. If the Bible were to be proven a hoax, ID wouldn't flinch.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So the designer is a space alien . . . . . ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe Joe is horribly worried about what would happen to the morality of our society if everyone stopped believing in space aliens.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, if ID doesn't have anything to do with religion, no sirree Bob, I'm a little curious as to, um, why all the IDers keep bitching and moaning about "materialism" . . . ?

I'm also a little curious as to whether the designer itself evolved (since it's not, ya know, divine or anything) or if it was itself designed by, uh, another designer  . . . . . ?

Joe?


I find it hysterically funny to watch the mental gymnastics that IDers put themselves through just to avoid saying out loud what everybody *already knows anyway*.  (snicker)  (giggle)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps because "materialism" is nonsense. That is why I rail against it.

ID doesn't say anything about eternal salvation.

The universe exists. We exist.

There is only one reality behind that exitence.

You guys may choose to belive in sheer dumb luck, but you can't defend that position scientifically.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on July 24 2007,20:05

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:01)
Well, if ID doesn't have anything to do with religion, no sirree Bob, I'm a little curious as to, um, why all the IDers keep bitching and moaning about "materialism" . . . ?



Perhaps because "materialism" is nonsense. That is why I rail against it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um, and the alternative to "materialism" is what, again . . . . ?


Would it be, perhaps, religion of some sort . . . . ?



You're, uh, not terribly bright, are you Joe.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on July 24 2007,20:07

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:01)
ID doesn't say anything about eternal salvation.

The universe exists. We exist.

There is only one reality behind that exitence.

You guys may choose to belive in sheer dumb luck, but you can't defend that position scientifically.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How dreadful.  (yawn)

I notice that you, uh, didn't answer my question.  So I'll ask again.

*ahem*

Is the designer a space alien?  Yes, it is, or no, it isn't.  Which.

And if the designer isn't supernatural (no religion here, no sirree Bob), then, uh, did it evolve?  Or was it itself designed by, uh, another designer?

Or are you just bullshitting us when you claim that ID doesn't have anything to do with religion?
Posted by: Joe G on July 24 2007,20:08

Zachriel sez:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You consistently refuse to respond to arguments, while never failing to cast aspersions.

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



Dude. Wake-up.

I just demonstrated that you don't have an argument.

You cannot have any part of one set that can also belong to an otherwise unrelated set.

What you want is like saying that humans can be primates and insects.

However I am sure that Dawkins would say that such a thing is possible. And why not seeing we are in an era in which imagination is a viable substitute for science.

This is no trivial matter and why you tried to keep the women out of the equation.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on July 24 2007,20:08

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,19:57)
Uh huh. So tell me, who was the designer if it wasn't god?

Who designed them?[/quote]

Does it matter who/ what the designer is?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep.

Now answer the question.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 24 2007,20:08



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

ID doesn't say anything about eternal salvation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So true. It's just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.  How could I not see the difference?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Perhaps because "materialism" is nonsense. That is why I rail against it.

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



Care to define 'materialism', tell us what your alternative is, and explain why your alternative is supposedly proven?



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

The universe exists. We exist.

There is only one reality behind that exitence
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, that's it, you've convinced me. No one could stand up to an argument like that.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on July 24 2007,20:09

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:08)
This is no trivial matter and why you tried to keep the women out of the equation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey Zachriel, you can send the women over HERE if you want.  *I* won't kick them out, by golly . . . .
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on July 24 2007,20:11

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 24 2007,20:08)


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

ID doesn't say anything about eternal salvation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So true. It's just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.  How could I not see the difference?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, ya know, Buddhism doesn't say anything about "eternal salvation" either.  

Heck, neither did the worshippers of Quetzalcoatl or Zeus.

Joe's, uh, not terribly bright, is he.

(snicker)  (giggle)
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 24 2007,20:15



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

I was a christian once also.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You're not now? So what's the deal, you really are a Muslim?

So, uh, if you're not a Christian, why does Dawkins seem to bother you?

I'm starting to see what Blipey's been talking about...
Posted by: Joe G on July 24 2007,20:16

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 24 2007,20:07)
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:01)
ID doesn't say anything about eternal salvation.

The universe exists. We exist.

There is only one reality behind that exitence.

You guys may choose to belive in sheer dumb luck, but you can't defend that position scientifically.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How dreadful.  (yawn)

I notice that you, uh, didn't answer my question.  So I'll ask again.

*ahem*

Is the designer a space alien?  Yes, it is, or no, it isn't.  Which.

And if the designer isn't supernatural (no religion here, no sirree Bob), then, uh, did it evolve?  Or was it itself designed by, uh, another designer?

Or are you just bullshitting us when you claim that ID doesn't have anything to do with religion?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ummm, we don't know who or what the designer is.

In the absence of direct observation or designer input, how would you determine who/ what the designer is or what specific process(es) were used, if all you had was the object in front of you?

Look at how little we know about Stonehenge and look how long we have been studying it.

The designer and the process(es) are separate from whether or not it was designed. Just like the origin of life is kept separarte from the theory of evolution despite the fact that how life arose directly impacts any subsequent evolution- ie was it designed to evolve or did it evolve willy-nilly?

And again- until we can study the designer(s) we cannot make any scientific determinations about it/ them.

What part about that don't you understand?

And as for supernatural- do you really think that natural processes can account for the universe when natural processes only exist once the universe does?

IOW cram the "supernatural" tardation. You can't get around it.

The debate is all about what desisgning agencies can do vs what nature, operating freely, can do.

Take your strawman and play in traffic.
Posted by: Joe G on July 24 2007,20:20

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 24 2007,20:15)


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

I was a christian once also.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You're not now? So what's the deal, you really are a Muslim?

So, uh, if you're not a Christian, why does Dawkins seem to bother you?

I'm starting to see what Blipey's been talking about...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you are starting to see what blipey is saying then you have already lost.

There is no need to engage you any further.

PS I am flattered by your personal attention and caring about my personal life. But it shows that you don't have any other "argument" to use.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on July 24 2007,20:27

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:16)
Ummm, we don't know who or what the designer is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, I'll play along. . . .

Is the designer materialistic, or isn't it.

If it is, did it evolve, or was it designed by a different designer.

If it isn't, then, uh, you're just bullshitting when you say it ain't god, right?

Why do you feel the need to bullshit about that, I wonder . . . . . ?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 24 2007,20:28



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

There is no need to engage you any further.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So you won't/can't answer any of the questions, such as what materialism is, and what your alternative is.

That didn't take long.

At least answer me this: are Dembski's claims wrong? Is ID NOT the Logos Theory of John's Gospel?
Posted by: Joe G on July 24 2007,20:30

Does ID say anything about who to worship?

No

Does ID say anything about when, how, why or where to worship?

No.

Does ID require a belief in "God"?

No.

So please tell me the connection between ID and religion that doesn't consist solely of IDists.

IOW what IDists do or don't doesn't impact ID...
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on July 24 2007,20:30

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:16)
And as for supernatural- do you really think that natural processes can account for the universe when natural processes only exist once the universe does?

IOW cram the "supernatural" tardation. You can't get around it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I see.  So the answer to my question is "yes, the designer is supernatural, it is god, it is all about religion, and IDers like you are just lying to us when they claim it's not".

Thanks.  Why the hell couldn't you just say so in the first place.  Why go through all the mental gymnastics first?  Geez.

In any case, now that you've conceded that the designer is just God, would you be willing to testify to this in court, next time some idiotic bunch of fundie nutters tries to lie to everyone by claiming their religious opinions about a supernatural designer are really science and not religion at all, no sirree Bob . . . . ?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on July 24 2007,20:31

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:30)
Does ID say anything about who to worship?

No

Does ID say anything about when, how, why or where to worship?

No.

Does ID require a belief in "God"?

No.

So please tell me the connection between ID and religion that doesn't consist solely of IDists.

IOW what IDists do or don't doesn't impact ID...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AHA HA HA HAA H !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Wow, Joe, you truly do live up to your reputation for tardness.
Posted by: Joe G on July 24 2007,20:34

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 24 2007,20:28)


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

There is no need to engage you any further.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So you won't/can't answer any of the questions, such as what materialism is, and what your alternative is.

That didn't take long.

At least answer me this: are Dembski's claims wrong? Is ID NOT the Logos Theory of John's Gospel?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would say Dembski is wrong, unless John's Gospel is right.

To me the gospel could be wrong and ID wouldn't care. Some IDists may care. But that is another story.

And if you are asking me about the alternatives to materialism I would say I am in the wrong place. Design is an alternative- duh.

Ypu could just visit Uncommon Descent, ARN, The Discovery Institute and read the FAQs or ID defined- you know, actually figure out what is being debated as opposed to just running around spewing the same stuff over and over.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on July 24 2007,20:35

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:30)
Does ID require a belief in "God"?

No.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So the designer is, uh, NOT God, now?

Then, uh, what the hell IS it?  Space aliens?

Didn't you just get finished telling me that the designer MUST be supernatural since "natural things couldn't start until after they were created"?

Make up your friggin mind, would you?  Is the designer God, or ain't it.

If it is, then how the hell can any IDer  ***NOT  BELIEVE IN GOD****?


If it ain't, then what, uh, OTHER supernatural designer did you have in mind . . . . ?




I do so enjoy these mental gymnatics to avoid saying, out loud, what *everyone already knows anyway* --- the "designer" is "god".  Period.

Why can't you just SAY that, Joe?  Why do you feel such a need to be so dishonest and evasive about it?  Why can't you just man up and say, out loud, that the designer is God?
Posted by: Joe G on July 24 2007,20:35

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 24 2007,20:31)
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:30)
Does ID say anything about who to worship?

No

Does ID say anything about when, how, why or where to worship?

No.

Does ID require a belief in "God"?

No.

So please tell me the connection between ID and religion that doesn't consist solely of IDists.

IOW what IDists do or don't doesn't impact ID...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AHA HA HA HAA H !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Wow, Joe, you truly do live up to your reputation for tardness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And you are still a freak.

Oh well.
Posted by: Joe G on July 24 2007,20:40

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 24 2007,20:30)
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:16)
And as for supernatural- do you really think that natural processes can account for the universe when natural processes only exist once the universe does?

IOW cram the "supernatural" tardation. You can't get around it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I see.  So the answer to my question is "yes, the designer is supernatural, it is god, it is all about religion, and IDers like you are just lying to us when they claim it's not".

Thanks.  Why the hell couldn't you just say so in the first place.  Why go through all the mental gymnastics first?  Geez.

In any case, now that you've conceded that the designer is just God, would you be willing to testify to this in court, next time some idiotic bunch of fundie nutters tries to lie to everyone by claiming their religious opinions about a supernatural designer are really science and not religion at all, no sirree Bob . . . . ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The answer to your question is no, we do not know who or what the designer is and the "supernatural" has nothing to do with it because even the atheistic materialistic PoV requires something beyond nature for the reason already explained.

And ya know something Lenny- I hope I am in the middle of it and have to testify in a Court of Law.

ID will surely get a favorable ruling once I am finished.

Hopefully you will be there and just have to eat everything I say and then swallow that favorable decision.

That day is coming. I love democracy!!!!

Bye-bye
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on July 24 2007,20:42

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:35)
And you are still a freak.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep, I'm a freak.  I'm also ugly, smell bad, can't see straight, and my mother doesn't love me. (shrug)

Now answer my goddamn questions.

I'll start over again, and I'll try to keep the questions vvvveeeeerrrryyyyy sssssiiiimmmmpppplllllleeeeee this time, OK?


*ahem*

Is the designer materialistic, or isn't it.

Yes or no.

Yes it is, or no it isn't.

Which.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 24 2007,20:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And if you are asking me about the alternatives to materialism I would say I am in the wrong place. Design is an alternative- duh.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So the opposite of 'materialism' is 'design'?

Wow. Wacky definition of 'materialism' there.

Incidentally, is it safe to assume that the existence of religious people who reject intelligent design doesn't bother you or disturb your theory in the slightest?

Are they materialists, too?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ypu could just visit Uncommon Descent, ARN, The Discovery Institute and read the FAQs or ID defined- you know, actually figure out what is being debated as opposed to just running around spewing the same stuff over and over.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I hear Answers in Genesis is a great resource, too.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And you are still a freak.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"I know you are -- but what am *I*?"



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And ya know something Lenny- I hope I am in the middle of it and have to testify in a Court of Law.

ID will surely get a favorable ruling once I am finished.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, dude, I dreamed of being an astronaut when I was a little kid, but hey, I outgrew it.
Posted by: Joe G on July 24 2007,20:42

Ooops- almost forgot-

Even if the designer was supernatural, so what?

The design exists in this world and can be studied.

ID is about the design, not the designer.

If science cares about reality it has to follow the data, even if the data leads to the metaphysical.

And if science doesn't care about reality then how can we tell it apart from science-fiction?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on July 24 2007,20:43

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:40)
And ya know something Lenny- I hope I am in the middle of it and have to testify in a Court of Law.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh sweet Jesus, I hope so too . . . . . . .

(snicker)  (giggle)
Posted by: Joe G on July 24 2007,20:43

Design is an ALTERNATIVE!

Not every alternative is an opposite.

Go soak your head...
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on July 24 2007,20:47

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:42)
Even if the designer was supernatural, so what?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know -- you tell *me*.  YOU'RE the one who seems awfully reluctant to just say, out loud, "the designer is God".

Why on earth do you have to be so dishonest and evasive about that simple statement?  As you yourself have said, if the designer *is* supernatural, so what?

Why do you have to be so dishonest about it?  What is it that you need so badly to hide?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 24 2007,20:47

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:43)
Design is an ALTERNATIVE!

Not every alternative is an opposite.

Go soak your head...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Soak my head?

Hey, I'm not the one with < fantasies > of testifying in court and vanquishing 'materialism'.

Okay, so we have Joe's menu of beliefs, which are apparently mutually exclusive:

a) 'materialism'
b) 'design'

Any others?

Where do religious people who reject ID fit into this? Are they (a), (b), or some other category you dreamt up?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on July 24 2007,20:50

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:43)
Go soak your head...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You forgot to mention rutabagas.


(snicker)  (giggle)


Yes, Joe, I am laughing at you.  I am making fun of you.  I am holding you up to ridicule. And I am inviting everyone else to hold you up to ridicule, as well.

I am telling you that because I'm not sure you're bright enough to figure it out for yourself.


BWA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on July 24 2007,20:51

Please Joe, all this talk about "ID says nothing about the designer being God" is so...yesterday.  Especially after ID got its teeth kicked in at Dover.

Now be a good little IDiot and tell us again about those alien cities you once claimed are located on the Moon and Mars. :D  :D  :D
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on July 24 2007,20:57

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ July 24 2007,20:51)
Now be a good little IDiot and tell us again about those alien cities you once claimed are located on the Moon and Mars. :D  :D  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


AHA !!!  I KNEW IT !!!!!

So the designer IS a space alien, huh Joe . . . . . ?


(snicker)  (giggle)

BWA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on July 24 2007,20:58

Hey Joe, I think right about here is the time when you go stomping off back to your cloister at UD and moan to everyone there how mean we all are to you. . . . .
Posted by: Zachriel on July 24 2007,21:58

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:08)
Zachriel sez:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You consistently refuse to respond to arguments, while never failing to cast aspersions.

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


You cannot have any part of one set that can also belong to an otherwise unrelated set.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I provided three sets—a real-world paternal family tree that is based on father-son relationships. Starting from the definitions of sets and subsets, I then itemized the members of the sets showing how the sets are nested.

 Sons of Abdullah = {Talal, Nayef, Hussein I, Muhammad, El Hassan, Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah}
 Sons of Talal = {Hussein I, Muhammad, El Hassan, Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah}
 Sons of Hussein I = {Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah}

As anyone can verify, each element in Sons of Hussein I will be found in Sons of Talal. Each element in Sons of Talal will be found in Sons of Abdullah. Each father can have any number of sons, but each son can have one-and-only-one father. Such a paternal family tree is necessarily a nested hierarchy, as is true of any diverging and uncrossed line-of-descent.

This could normally segue into a discussion of the evidence for common descent, but that topic is impossible to explore with your current lack of knowledge concerning set theory and categorization.
Posted by: carlsonjok on July 24 2007,22:08

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 24 2007,20:57)
So the designer IS a space alien, huh Joe . . . . . ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course he is.  They even have pictures of his space ship.

Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 25 2007,00:06



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

And ya know something Lenny- I hope I am in the middle of it and have to testify in a Court of Law.

ID will surely get a favorable ruling once I am finished.

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



The Thomas More Law Center believed all the DI propaganda, too.

Dembski says he knew they were going to lose even when he signed up to be an expert witness for them. Dembski was bright enough to pull out before being deposed in the case. Pretty much perfect timing -- he was able to bill a bit over $20K in fees, and had nothing from that association other than an expert witness report and rebuttal report to live down thereafter.
Posted by: snoeman on July 25 2007,01:43

I wonder if this might help Joe.  It requires MS Access 2000 or later, but it's a good introduction to nested hierarchies (or "nested sets" as it's described in the links below).

This stems from the problem of trying to represent hierarchies in relational databases, and specifically to explode a bill of materials using something faster and more elegant than recursive SQL.

The article < here > introduces the notion of using nested sets to represent hierarchies such as a bill of materials (or an organization chart, or, I don't know, a tree of life...).

This < link > goes to an Access database containing a bill of materials for an "A".  You can use the query provided to find out exactly what's required to produce an "A".  (You can also find out what it takes to make any of "A's" components as well.) The nested hierarchy here is that you have an "A" and everything that makes up "A" is a part of it.

If you replace the letters in the table with some of the names in < Zach's > graph, you can very clearly see the nested hierarchy he refers to.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 25 2007,02:54

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 24 2007,18:54)
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,18:34)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 24 2007,16:10)
 
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,13:39)
   
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 24 2007,13:06)
So what's your ultimate point Joe? That god did it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe claimed to be a Muslim once, so perhaps his position is Allahdidit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was a christian once also.

Intelligent Design makes it possible to be an intellectually fullfilled atheist. It has absolutely no attachments to the divine what-so-ever.

If all religions were falsified tomorrow ID wouldn't be fazed. If the Bible were to be proven a hoax, ID wouldn't flinch.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What, then, is the essential defining difference that separates "god" from "the intelligent designer" exactly?

If the two terms are not interchangeable, then why not? I see no reason, and you've provided none so far.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi Joe,
What, then, is the essential defining difference that separates "god" from "the intelligent designer" exactly?

If the two terms are not interchangeable, then why not? I see no reason, and you've provided none so far.
Posted by: jeannot on July 25 2007,03:14

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:42)
Ooops- almost forgot-

Even if the designer was supernatural, so what?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If he is, ID is not a scientific theory.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on July 25 2007,05:09

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,19:57)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 24 2007,18:36)
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,18:34)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 24 2007,16:10)
 
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,13:39)
   
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 24 2007,13:06)
So what's your ultimate point Joe? That god did it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe claimed to be a Muslim once, so perhaps his position is Allahdidit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was a christian once also.

Intelligent Design makes it possible to be an intellectually fullfilled atheist. It has absolutely no attachments to the divine what-so-ever.

If all religions were falsified tomorrow ID wouldn't be fazed. If the Bible were to be proven a hoax, ID wouldn't flinch.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uh huh. So tell me, who was the designer if it wasn't god?

Who designed them?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does it matter who/ what the designer is?

Can we, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, determine the presence of design?

It's already obvious it matters to an investigation.

Also only once we can examine said designer(s) can we make any scientific determination about it/ them.

Right now all we have is the data observed and observable in this universe. And we ask, did nature, operating freely cause it (sheer dumb luck) or are we part of some purposeful arrangement, ie some grand design?

How can we tell?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, it does matter.

No, we cannot do that, because in order to see the design, we would have to know how the designer did it, and it's a pretty safe bet we would need to know the designers identity for that.

The rest of this post seems to my silly darwinist, materialist (whatever the hell that means) mind like THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF YOUR POINT.

If we don't know how the designer acted, as you state, and don't know how we can tell if something is designed, WHAT THE FUCKING HELL DO YOU WANT ID TO DO?
Posted by: deejay on July 25 2007,08:24

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,21:40)

And ya know something Lenny- I hope I am in the middle of it and have to testify in a Court of Law.

ID will surely get a favorable ruling once I am finished.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe-

What specific role do you envision for yourself here?
Posted by: franky172 on July 25 2007,08:57



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I just demonstrated that you don't have an argument.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have demonstrated nothing other than your lack of comprehension of the basics of sets and nested hierarchies.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You cannot have any part of one set that can also belong to an otherwise unrelated set.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So the set of soldiers that comprises the army, they aren't also in the nested hierarchy starting with Kingdom Animal and ending with Homo Sapeins?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What you want is like saying that humans can be primates and insects.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


False.  What we "want is like saying" that humans can be Homo Sapiens and soldiers.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is no trivial matter and why you tried to keep the women out of the equation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, it is a trivial matter.
Posted by: Darth Robo on July 25 2007,09:21

"how we can tell if something is designed"

COMPLEXITY AND ORDER IS EVIDENCE OF DESIGN!  DAMMIT!

:angry:
Posted by: Rob on July 25 2007,12:16

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,13:39)
Is your ultimate point that we owe our existence to sheer dumb luck? It must be because in the absence of intelligent design or a Special Creation, that is all you have.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It has been repeatedly explained to Joe why this is a false dichotomy, but apparently it still hasn't sunk in.

If life is a product of "nature operating freely", then we're lucky that life emerged against the odds, or we're lucky that nature is such that the odds were in favor of life emerging.  If life is a product of a Designer, then we're lucky that a capable and willing Designer exists (or, according to JAD, used to exist).  If the Designer was designed, then we're lucky that the meta-Designer existed, etc.

Joe is unable to posit a scenario that isn't ultimately sheer dumb luck, but he continues to bring up this false dichotomy.

On < Joe's blog >, he asks:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And the issue I have with this position is that it is unscientific- just how do we test sheer dumb luck?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If the sheer-dumb-luck hypothesis is untestable, then on what grounds does Joe claim it to be false?

And how can design, the alternative to sheer-dumb-luck, be stated as a scientific hypothesis?  It's clear that Joe has no clue as to what a scientific hypothesis entails, even though he claims to be a scientist.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on July 25 2007,13:33

I think it is possible to test sheer dumb luck.  See if Joe puts his shoes on the correct feet everyday for a month.  If he manages to match the left shoe and left foot and vicey-versey, then we have shown that sheer dumb luck can account for regularity.  

Because there is no way this fool could have that much sense.
Posted by: blipey on July 25 2007,13:48

Wow.  I hate to mention this for the simple fact that it will be ignored.  However, can you reconcile the following two things, Joe?

1.  If I look closely at a paternal family tree, I will see only the name of the patriarch.  True.

2.  If I look at a diagram of a traditional ARMY, I will see only the name "Field Army" at the top.  True.

How is "2" a NH and "1" is not?  Please base this completely on your observation that "Steve" sits atop the family tree (since this appears to be your only observation).
Posted by: blipey on July 25 2007,13:57

Whatever it costs, I will be getting front row seats at the trial Joe G testifies at.  Thatll make Behe look like a genius.
Posted by: blipey on July 25 2007,14:30

Also, a belated "Thanks for stopping by, Joe."

This thread is becoming all I hoped it could be when I started it.
Posted by: Rob on July 26 2007,11:52

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 24 2007,20:47)
Hey, I'm not the one with < fantasies > of testifying in court and vanquishing 'materialism'.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe's < Perry Mason fantasy > grilling Barbara Forrest is particularly hilarious.  Readers' Digest version:  Forrest says that she understands ID to require the supernatural.  Joe points out that the DI FAQ says the opposite, and Forrest ends up looking stupid.

In real life, Joe's argument would fly like a lead balloon. First of all, the DI FAQ says nothing about the issue, although some IDists, particularly Casey Luskin, indeed deny that ID requires the supernatural.

What the DI FAQ does say is this:        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. For more information see Center Director Stephen Meyer's article < "Not By Chance" > from the National Post of Canada or his appearance on PBS's "Tavis Smiley Show (Windows Media).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If we follow the link to Stephen Meyer's "Not By Chance", we find the following:        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet, the scientists arguing for intelligent design do not do so merely because natural processes-chance, laws or the combination of the two-have failed to explain the origin of the information and information processing systems in cells.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(Emphasis mine)

This is one of many quotes by top-tier IDists asserting the insufficiency of natural processes to explain various phenomena.  Here are some more by Dembski:

- "CSI demands an intelligent cause. Natural causes will not do."
- "In arguing that naturalistic explanations are incomplete or, equivalently, that natural causes cannot account for certain features of the natural world, I am placing natural causes in contradistinction to intelligent causes."
- "A fundamental tenet of intelligent design is that intelligent agency, even when conditioned by a physical system that embodies it, cannot be reduced to natural causes without remainder."
- "Natural causes are therefore incapable of generating CSI."

Even more hilarious is Joe's < about-face > later in that thread:        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And about the supernatural, seeing that natural processes only exist IN nature, it is obvious that they cannot account for its origin. IOW even the materialistic anti-ID position requires something outside of nature.

That is exactly how it should be presented during if someone else decides to take ID to Court.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So Joe thinks that the following two arguments should be presented in court:

1) The ID position does not require the supernatural.
2) All positions require the supernatural.

I'll be sitting right next to Blipey in the front row when Joe presents his case.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 26 2007,13:25



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

Joe's Perry Mason fantasy grilling Barbara Forrest is particularly hilarious.  Readers' Digest version:  Forrest says that she understands ID to require the supernatural.  Joe points out that the DI FAQ says the opposite, and Forrest ends up looking stupid.

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



The whole point of a sham such as "intelligent design" is that the perpetrators say untrue things about it. They managed to hoodwink the Thomas More Law Center last time; who's going to fall for it this time?
Posted by: Steverino on July 26 2007,13:39

I think you scared him away.!   ....aw shucks.....*snif*....

I'd like to know what court case his planning on testifying in....for what case?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on July 26 2007,19:16

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 26 2007,13:25)
They managed to hoodwink the Thomas More Law Center last time; who's going to fall for it this time?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps the Thomas More Law Center, again.

Fundies *are* awfully stupid, ya know.
Posted by: stevestory on July 26 2007,19:23

Quote (Rob @ July 26 2007,12:52)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 24 2007,20:47)
Hey, I'm not the one with < fantasies > of testifying in court and vanquishing 'materialism'.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe's < Perry Mason fantasy > grilling Barbara Forrest is particularly hilarious.  Readers' Digest version:  Forrest says that she understands ID to require the supernatural.  Joe points out that the DI FAQ says the opposite, and Forrest ends up looking stupid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Crackpot Index
John Baez

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:

...

40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Louis on July 27 2007,01:36

Steve,

Nice one. We cannot fail to link John Baez's index regularly. Like the TO Index to Creationist Claims, it's very rare that we encounter anything that is not adequately covered by both documents.

< LINK >

Louis

P.S. Added in Edit: there is also < this > equally aposite offering from teh intarwebz.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on July 27 2007,09:12

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:43)
Design is an ALTERNATIVE!

Not every alternative is an opposite.

Go soak your head...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Welcome to AtBC Joe. You have probably noticed that most commenters here actually suport the idea that evolution has actually happened.

May I ask you a few questions Joe?
1) What is the scientific theory of ID?
2) Never mind, until you answer No1 nothing else matters (regarding ID).

EDIT: BTW Joe, I am not as hostile as you may think. A few years back i was also an ID supporter. Time has made me hostile though, I consider ID nothing but a bullshit atempt to get religion taught as science now.

However I would love to "return to the fold" providing you can do something.
A) Provide proof that ID is "scientific" (you know what that entails right?).
B) Provide proof that evolution is wrong.*

BTW. Evolution=wrong is not ID=Correct. But it would help.

Can you do that?
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on July 27 2007,10:26

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 27 2007,09:12)
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:43)
Design is an ALTERNATIVE!

Not every alternative is an opposite.

Go soak your head...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Welcome to AtBC Joe. You have probably noticed that most commenters here actually suport the idea that evolution has actually happened.

May I ask you a few questions Joe?
1) What is the scientific theory of ID?
2) Never mind, until you answer No1 nothing else matters (regarding ID).

EDIT: BTW Joe, I am not as hostile as you may think. A few years back i was also an ID supporter. Time has made me hostile though, I consider ID nothing but a bullshit atempt to get religion taught as science now.

However I would love to "return to the fold" providing you can do something.
A) Provide proof that ID is "scientific" (you know what that entails right?).
B) Provide proof that evolution is wrong.*

BTW. Evolution=wrong is not ID=Correct. But it would help.

Can you do that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Prediction: Joe will issue the < 3-hour Challenge >.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Watch two videos- "The Privileged Planet" and "Unlocking the Mystery of Life", and then, if you can without lying, tell us why ID is not based on observation and scientific research, but is based on religious doctrines and faith.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Joe thinks advocacy videos are "evidence."
Posted by: blipey on July 27 2007,11:01

He also thinks that sentences are evidence.  I'm not sure if he realizes that sentences contain information and that it is the information that can be used as evidence.

On the up side, his sentences are truly master works of surrealism.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on July 27 2007,11:21

Quote (blipey @ July 27 2007,11:01)
He also thinks that sentences are evidence.  I'm not sure if he realizes that sentences contain information and that it is the information that can be used as evidence.

On the up side, his sentences are truly master works of surrealism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Andrea Bottaro provided an excellent encapsulation of Joe's tardity < a comment at PT >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...you are remarkably impenetrable to reason and unaware of self-embarassment
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This led to an overdose of tard from Joe, which I chronicled < here >.
Joe referred to Bottaro as a "she," and when corrected chose to dig his hole much deeper.  He's truly his own worst enemy, and is totally unaware of it.
Posted by: Rob on July 27 2007,11:59

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ July 27 2007,11:21)
This led to an overdose of tard from Joe, which I chronicled < here >.
Joe referred to Bottaro as a "she," and when corrected chose to dig his hole much deeper.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's classic Joe.  "I know Andrea's a man, but I said 'she' because ... um ... he argues like a girl.  Yeah, that's the ticket."

It's amazing how incapable he is of admitting that he's wrong, even on trivial matters.  For instance, < here > he mentioned that a paper "peaked" someone's interest, and he went into full-blown defensive mode when someone suggested that the word he was looking for was "piqued".  He tried to defend himself by quoting a definition in which "peak" is defined as an intransitive verb.  When I pointed out that his usage was transitive but the definition was intransitive, he switched definitions, and then, bizarrely, denied that he had done so.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 27 2007,12:14

The thing that fascinates me about Joe, something other IDers don't do, is his willingness to tell preposterous lies about himself when he thinks it'll help him win an argument. When other IDers are challenged with the abundant evidence of the Christian foundations of ID will simply become evasive. When pressed on their own religious motives, they simply ignore the question. Joe, however, will actually lie about himself and claim to be a Muslim or an atheist if he thinks that'll help him score a couple immediate points. The extreme implausibility of these claims and the ease with which anyone can go back over his previous statements to contradict them never occurs to him. He never thinks ahead.

So his business of switching definitions of a word and denying he'd done so, when the evidence is right there further up the same screen is part and parcel of the same approach.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on July 27 2007,13:24

Quote (Rob @ July 27 2007,11:59)
...
It's amazing how incapable he is of admitting that he's wrong, even on trivial matters.  For instance, < here > he mentioned that a paper "peaked" someone's interest, and he went into full-blown defensive mode when someone suggested that the word he was looking for was "piqued".  He tried to defend himself by quoting a definition in which "peak" is defined as an intransitive verb.  When I pointed out that his usage was transitive but the definition was intransitive, he switched definitions, and then, bizarrely, denied that he had done so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That aint so surprising TBH. As far as I can follow it, his enire argument about nested heirarchies (in his world) seems to be about word definitions.

Quote (Arden Chatfield Posted on July 27 2007 @ 12:14 )
The thing that fascinates me about Joe, something other IDers don't do, is his willingness to tell preposterous lies about himself when he thinks it'll help him win an argument...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You gotta be kidding right? Or can DS actually violate SLOT on his keyboard, AFDave has real evidence for the flood and Larry Fafarman is a legal genius etc.?

Yep you must be kidding.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 27 2007,13:43

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 27 2007,13:24)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield Posted on July 27 2007 @ 12:14 )
The thing that fascinates me about Joe, something other IDers don't do, is his willingness to tell preposterous lies about himself when he thinks it'll help him win an argument...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You gotta be kidding right? Or can DS actually violate SLOT on his keyboard, AFDave has real evidence for the flood and Larry Fafarman is a legal genius etc.?

Yep you must be kidding.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Note I said 'tell lies about themselves'. So saying retarded things about science that one actually believes (DT's typing violates SLOT or AFD has proof of the flood) doesn't count, nor does being completely delusional about oneself (Larry Fafarman tells us what a brilliant legal mind he has).

I'm talking about deliberately lying about one's own religion, or denying having posted a statement to a blog just 10 minutes before, when the liar in question knows full well it's nonsense. Crazy shit that anyone can disprove, shit that probably even embarrasses FTK. Takes a special kind of mind to do that, tho Joe is clearly up to the challenge.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 27 2007,13:51

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 27 2007,13:43)
I'm talking about deliberately lying about one's own religion, or denying having posted a statement to a blog just 10 minutes before, when the liar in question knows full well it's nonsense. Crazy shit that anyone can disprove, shit that probably even embarrasses FTK. Takes a special kind of mind to do that, tho Joe is clearly up to the challenge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For a stunning example of this, remember that Joe looked at this figure provided by Zach (and even copied it into his own comment)

and then spouted this    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The "set" at the top of Zachriel's "tree" is Abdullah. If you look at the diagram closely you will see only his name.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apparently he was hoping that none of the rest of us actually had functional eyeballs...
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on July 27 2007,13:52

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 27 2007,13:43)
... shit that probably even embarrasses FTK. Takes a special kind of mind to do that, tho Joe is clearly up to the challenge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL!
Touche
Posted by: blipey on July 27 2007,16:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
shit that probably even embarrasses FTK.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, I don't know about that.  In fact, Ftk has recently taken up defending JoeG--I guess you can't get too low sometimes.  I called her on her defense and she chose not to publish the critique.

< Crackpottery including JoeG defense >

The relevant part:

Ftk:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BTW, I’ve seen Joe G. answer many of your questions as well. That is why I find it quite odd that you keep making this same claim over and over that we don’t answer questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 27 2007,16:32

I dunno, FTK would have probably rolled her eyes when Joe briefly claimed to be a Muslim in order to refute the idea that only Christians support ID.

'Course, she never would have said anything about it out loud...
Posted by: Louis on July 28 2007,12:47

FTK, like many loons, is unaware that "respond to" =/= "answer".

For example if someone were to ask me "Why is the sky blue?" and I replied "Jesus", I would have responded to the question, but I wouldn't have answered it.

Sadly, loons like FTK and Joe are also unaware that "Jesus" is not the answer to every question.

Oh well.

Louis
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 28 2007,13:16

This hit the nail on the head:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
[Joe] also thinks that sentences are evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is a common malaise of autodidacts, but I don't think Joe even rises to that level.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on July 28 2007,19:11

But the good news for Joe, should he ever choose that option, is that from the sub-basement, he does have plenty of overhead into which to rise.

Actually, in terms of bang for the buck, Joe is perfectly positioned to dramatically multiply his intellectual achievements.

He may never catch up, but he's certainly capable of leaving his current self buried deep in the dust.

Unfortunately, the chance that he'll ever make the modest self-investment necessary to reap these spectacular gains is negligible.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on July 29 2007,09:26

Louis blasphemed

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For example if someone were to ask me "Why is the sky blue?" and I replied "Jesus", I would have responded to the question, but I wouldn't have answered it.

Sadly, loons like FTK and Joe are also unaware that "Jesus" is not the answer to every question.

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



Ahhhh, but Jesus IS the answer to 'Why is the sky blue?'  I mean shit what else could be the answer?  pfffff.
Posted by: slpage on July 29 2007,12:42

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ July 24 2007,09:36)
Joe, do you still tell people you're a qualified scientist because your degree says "Bachelor of Science, Engineering Technology"?

:D  :D  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, it is in Electronics Engineering.
Posted by: slpage on July 29 2007,12:49

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:35)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 24 2007,20:31)
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:30)
Does ID say anything about who to worship?

No

Does ID say anything about when, how, why or where to worship?

No.

Does ID require a belief in "God"?

No.

So please tell me the connection between ID and religion that doesn't consist solely of IDists.

IOW what IDists do or don't doesn't impact ID...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AHA HA HA HAA H !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Wow, Joe, you truly do live up to your reputation for tardness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And you are still a freak.

Oh well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Brilliant retort, ID's Bulldog!
Posted by: slpage on July 29 2007,12:54

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:40)
And ya know something Lenny- I hope I am in the middle of it and have to testify in a Court of Law.

ID will surely get a favorable ruling once I am finished.

Hopefully you will be there and just have to eat everything I say and then swallow that favorable decision.

That day is coming. I love democracy!!!!

Bye-bye
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And what, exactly will you say in the court of law?

Will you demand to be allowed to show an advocacy video and then declare that all who do not agree that this is, indeed, a 'Privileged Planet' must be stupid or lying?  I'm sure that will sway the court.

Will you threaten the judge or jury be finding out their home addresses and claiming that not everyone drives through their town to ski (or whatever it is that their areas might be known for)?  Yes, I am sure THAT will convert all to your side.


Will you declare that all evidence for evolution is just evidence for common design?  I'm sure all will see the pure logic and irrefutability of that.  

Actually, I do sort of hope that you are a witness in an ID court case some day.  I eagerly look forward to seeing you publicly humiliated in such a setting.  I promise to gloat for years.
Posted by: slpage on July 29 2007,12:59

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 27 2007,13:43)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 27 2007,13:24)
   
Quote (Arden Chatfield Posted on July 27 2007 @ 12:14 )
The thing that fascinates me about Joe, something other IDers don't do, is his willingness to tell preposterous lies about himself when he thinks it'll help him win an argument...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You gotta be kidding right? Or can DS actually violate SLOT on his keyboard, AFDave has real evidence for the flood and Larry Fafarman is a legal genius etc.?

Yep you must be kidding.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Note I said 'tell lies about themselves'. So saying retarded things about science that one actually believes (DT's typing violates SLOT or AFD has proof of the flood) doesn't count, nor does being completely delusional about oneself (Larry Fafarman tells us what a brilliant legal mind he has).

I'm talking about deliberately lying about one's own religion, or denying having posted a statement to a blog just 10 minutes before, when the liar in question knows full well it's nonsense. Crazy shit that anyone can disprove, shit that probably even embarrasses FTK. Takes a special kind of mind to do that, tho Joe is clearly up to the challenge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can we say "cross examination"?

:p
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 09 2007,11:14

< Evidences for Common Design- Evidence 1 >

The thread starts as an apparent rewrite of < 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution > by Doug Theobold.

Theobold: According to the theory of common descent, modern living organisms, with all their incredible differences, are the progeny of one single species in the distant past.

JoeG: According to the theory of common design, modern living organisms, with all their incredible differences, are the progeny of one single grand design put in motion in the distant past.

But then it looks like JoeG loses steam leaving most of the text intact, including strong evidence supporting evolutionary theory.

In fact, in 1963—three years before the code was finally solved—Hinegardner and Engelberg published a paper in Science formally explaining the evolutionary rationale for why the code must be universal (or nearly so) if universal common descent were true, since most mutations in the code would likely be lethal to all living things. Note that, although these early researchers predicted a universal genetic code based on common descent, they also predicted that minor variations could likely be found. Hinegardner and Engelberg allowed for some variation in the genetic code, and predicted how such variation should be distributed if found:

"... if different codes do exist they should be associated with major taxonomic groups such as phyla or kingdoms that have their roots far in the past." (Hinegardner and Engelberg 1963)


At the end JoeG adds, Thanks to Dr Theobald and Talk Origins for all the work for this article. See < Fundamental Unity of Life >.

I don't get it.
Posted by: Steverino on Aug. 09 2007,11:32

...and neither did Joe G.

:p
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 09 2007,11:43

Just for fun, < threads on Joe's blog that have Zachriel in the title >.
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 09 2007,11:45

LOL
Posted by: blipey on Aug. 09 2007,13:09

I'll work security for you, Zachriel.  I hear that clowns are good at keeping the clowns at bay.
Posted by: J-Dog on Aug. 09 2007,13:34

Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 09 2007,11:43)
Just for fun, < threads on Joe's blog that have Zachriel in the title >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now That's funny!  I'm thinking that we  should all go over there as Zach, or Zachareal, Zach4real something like that, to post, but then I guess we'd all feel bad when he becomes the first documented case of spontaneous combustion.  

BTW Joe G: These domain names are still available:
Zachariel Makes Me Cry
Zachariel is a Big Meany
Zachariel Pwns Me
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 09 2007,15:12

Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 09 2007,11:14)
< Evidences for Common Design- Evidence 1 >

The thread starts as an apparent rewrite of < 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution > by Doug Theobold.

Theobold: According to the theory of common descent, modern living organisms, with all their incredible differences, are the progeny of one single species in the distant past.

JoeG: According to the theory of common design, modern living organisms, with all their incredible differences, are the progeny of one single grand design put in motion in the distant past.

But then it looks like JoeG loses steam leaving most of the text intact, including strong evidence supporting evolutionary theory.

In fact, in 1963—three years before the code was finally solved—Hinegardner and Engelberg published a paper in Science formally explaining the evolutionary rationale for why the code must be universal (or nearly so) if universal common descent were true, since most mutations in the code would likely be lethal to all living things. Note that, although these early researchers predicted a universal genetic code based on common descent, they also predicted that minor variations could likely be found. Hinegardner and Engelberg allowed for some variation in the genetic code, and predicted how such variation should be distributed if found:

"... if different codes do exist they should be associated with major taxonomic groups such as phyla or kingdoms that have their roots far in the past." (Hinegardner and Engelberg 1963)


At the end JoeG adds, Thanks to Dr Theobald and Talk Origins for all the work for this article. See < Fundamental Unity of Life >.

I don't get it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Looks like Joe has finally done all the hard work. Search & Replace along with a footnote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Joe G >: All I had to do was to make a few corrections indicated with emphasis above.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Except that now the text makes false claims. Joe is ascribing views to scientists that they did not in fact hold!

In fact, in 1963—three years before the code was finally solved—Hinegardner and Engelberg published a paper in Science formally explaining the evolutionary rationale for why the code must be universal (or nearly so) if universal common design were true, since most mutations in the code would likely be lethal to all living things. Note that, although these early researchers predicted a universal genetic code based on common design, they also predicted that minor variations could likely be found. Hinegardner and Engelberg allowed for some variation in the genetic code, and predicted how such variation should be distributed if found:

"... if different codes do exist they should be associated with major taxonomic groups such as phyla or kingdoms that have their roots far in the past." (Hinegardner and Engelberg 1963)


That is not correct, of course. Hinegardner and Engelberg made their predictions based on non-telic evolutionary theory.
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 10 2007,06:37

Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 09 2007,15:12)
Looks like Joe has finally done all the hard work. Search & Replace along with a footnote:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Joe G >: All I had to do was to make a few corrections indicated with emphasis above.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Except that now the text makes false claims. Joe is ascribing views to scientists that they did not in fact hold!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In effect, Joe has clearly demonstrated that you can't just replace "common descent" with "common design" and expect it to make sense. In fact, it turns the truth into a lie. Good work, Joe!
Posted by: k.e on Aug. 10 2007,07:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In fact, it turns the truth into a lie. Good work, Joe!

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



Awwwwwwwwhhhh.

Can we call Joe. G. Mr. 31% Joe.

Thhhwwwwpppp!

Weak as piss, Joe.
Posted by: Cedric Katesby on Aug. 10 2007,08:56

"Tell us about the alien cities on the Moon and Mars'

Oh please. Yes please. :D  :D  :D
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 10 2007,09:01

Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 10 2007,06:37)
Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 09 2007,15:12)
Looks like Joe has finally done all the hard work. Search & Replace along with a footnote:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Joe G >: All I had to do was to make a few corrections indicated with emphasis above.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Except that now the text makes false claims. Joe is ascribing views to scientists that they did not in fact hold!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In effect, Joe has clearly demonstrated that you can't just replace "common descent" with "common design" and expect it to make sense. In fact, it turns the truth into a lie. Good work, Joe!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Adding "doesn't" to sentences is also good. Erm, bad.
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 10 2007,09:46

Guys you really have to stop mainlining tard this pure and in these quantities. It's bad stuff.

Look what it did to me:

Before

After

DON'T DO TARD! JUST SAY NO!

Louis

P.S. Added in edit:

HAR HAR THIS IS YOU


Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Aug. 21 2007,10:39

< Guess who's popped up at PT! >

His delusions of grandeur seem unchanged:

 

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

I hope to see you all at the next ?ID trial?. At that trial all the facts will come out- I will make sure of it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: blipey on Aug. 21 2007,10:53

Well, now that the 3 of us who ever read his blog don't go there anymore he must feel lonely.  It's tough being boring.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 21 2007,11:03

I'm delighted the "HAR HAR THIS IS YOU" meme has caught on.



Oh,

HAR HAR THIS IS YOU



Posted by: Rob on Aug. 21 2007,11:47

There has also been a Joe sighting < here >, where he spouts the same old crap verbatim.  Can somebody please help Joe to come up with some new material?
Posted by: Rob on Aug. 21 2007,12:18

< Joe argues for vitalism: >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also I should note that dead organisms have the SAME chemicals as their living counterparts. Yet they are still dead.

That alone refutes Art2?s premise about chemistry and living organisms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And if you pummel a computer with a sledgehammer, the resulting pile of junk has the same materials as a working computer, and yet it doesn't work.  This is proof that computers have souls.
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 21 2007,12:25

The G stands for Genius.


Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Aug. 22 2007,12:58

< Maytag Joe is back at PT and he's feeling frisky! >

He's even linking to his own blog to back up his scientific 'explanations'. Gee, thanks a bunch, Joe.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Aug. 22 2007,13:50

goddam but glen davidson has a sharp tongue.  i laughed til i nearly cried.  joe g is a colossal idiot.  too bad he is not unique.
Posted by: Hermagoras on Aug. 27 2007,12:53

I've caught UD regular Joe G at my UD-inspired < blogtrap >.  He's a persistent little guy.  Does anybody want to come over  and help me whack him around for a bit?
Posted by: blipey on Aug. 27 2007,13:54

Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 27 2007,12:53)
I've caught UD regular Joe G at my UD-inspired < blogtrap >.  He's a persistent little guy.  Does anybody want to come over  and help me whack him around for a bit?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe should work in a sideshow tent.  Truly a wonder of the modern world.
Posted by: Hermagoras on Aug. 27 2007,14:16

Quote (blipey @ Aug. 27 2007,13:54)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 27 2007,12:53)
I've caught UD regular Joe G at my UD-inspired < blogtrap >.  He's a persistent little guy.  Does anybody want to come over  and help me whack him around for a bit?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe should work in a sideshow tent.  Truly a wonder of the modern world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You bet.  What a maroon.  And thanks for the help blipey (and Smokey).  

Joe G has provided me with a new line for my sig:

"I will show you what you want when you show up at my door."  

Tard.
Posted by: Steverino on Aug. 27 2007,14:24

Hey Joe G...Come back and answer some questions....ya know, when you take a break from preparing for court.

I'd like to know:

Any proof that appearance of design, does in fact, prove a design or a designer?.

Does Irreducible Complexity have a timelimit???  I was wondering because if you argue something is too complex to have evolved thru natural means...and in 5 years we understand more about how it could have evolved thru natual means...wouldn't that mean that your whole "IC" is just "BS"?

Just asking.
Posted by: blipey on Aug. 27 2007,14:26

Ah, yes.  Joe has given me this response on not fewer than 3 topics:

1.  He claimed to have debated, and embarrassed numerous scientists in fields of their expertise.  I asked for the list and he said he'd give it to me when I showed up at his door.

2.  He claimed to have used the Explanatory Filter successfully.  I asked him for the equation and work.  He said he'd show me when I showed up at his door.

3.  He claimed to have a valid, curriculum based ID teaching plan.  He also claimed to have given this lesson at schools in New Hampshire.  I asked him for the lesson plan and a list of schools that he had done this at.  He said he'd show me when I showed up at his door.

He's going to be really surprised when I show up at his door.  He should ask DaveScot for an escape plan with regard to clowns actually showing up in your hometown as promised.

edited for pronoun trouble
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 27 2007,14:41

Quote (blipey @ Aug. 27 2007,14:26)
He's going to be really surprised when I show up at his door. ?He should ask DaveScot for an escape plan with regard to clowns actually showing up in your hometown as promised.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Watch out for freon poisoning!
Posted by: blipey on Aug. 27 2007,14:44

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 27 2007,14:41)
Quote (blipey @ Aug. 27 2007,14:26)
He's going to be really surprised when I show up at his door. ?He should ask DaveScot for an escape plan with regard to clowns actually showing up in your hometown as promised.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Watch out for freon poisoning!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why?  It didn't seem to affect Joe that much....
Posted by: Hermagoras on Aug. 27 2007,14:46

Quote (blipey @ Aug. 27 2007,14:44)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 27 2007,14:41)
Quote (blipey @ Aug. 27 2007,14:26)
He's going to be really surprised when I show up at his door. ?He should ask DaveScot for an escape plan with regard to clowns actually showing up in your hometown as promised.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Watch out for freon poisoning!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why?  It didn't seem to affect Joe that much....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't understand the allusion.  Freon?
Posted by: blipey on Aug. 27 2007,15:08

Joe is the Maytag Man.  The Frigidaire Biologist.  The Astrophysicist of the Deep Freeze.  The Kitchen Muslim....
Posted by: Hermagoras on Aug. 27 2007,15:16

Quote (blipey @ Aug. 27 2007,15:08)
Joe is the Maytag Man.  The Frigidaire Biologist.  The Astrophysicist of the Deep Freeze.  The Kitchen Muslim....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really?   He's a repairman?  Fantastic.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 27 2007,15:24

Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 27 2007,15:16)
Quote (blipey @ Aug. 27 2007,15:08)
Joe is the Maytag Man. ?The Frigidaire Biologist. ?The Astrophysicist of the Deep Freeze. ?The Kitchen Muslim....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really? ? He's a repairman? ?Fantastic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/ >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
About Me
Name:
Joe G
Location:
New England, United States
I fix things- all kinds of things- mechanical, electrical, electronic and personal

View my complete profile

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


Posted by: carlsonjok on Aug. 27 2007,15:24

Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 27 2007,15:16)
Quote (blipey @ Aug. 27 2007,15:08)
Joe is the Maytag Man. ?The Frigidaire Biologist. ?The Astrophysicist of the Deep Freeze. ?The Kitchen Muslim....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really? ? He's a repairman? ?Fantastic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, sure, in a manner. He works for General Electric, which does makes consumer appliances.  They also make jet engines, railroad locomotives, medical imaging equipment, and desalination plants to name a few.

Has Joe actually stated what he does service?
Posted by: JAM on Aug. 27 2007,15:33

Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 27 2007,15:24)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 27 2007,15:16)
Quote (blipey @ Aug. 27 2007,15:08)
Joe is the Maytag Man. ?The Frigidaire Biologist. ?The Astrophysicist of the Deep Freeze. ?The Kitchen Muslim....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really? ? He's a repairman? ?Fantastic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, sure, in a manner. He works for General Electric, which does makes consumer appliances. ?They also make jet engines, railroad locomotives, medical imaging equipment, and desalination plants to name a few.

Has Joe actually stated what he does service?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm guessing the plumbing in the restrooms.
Posted by: Hermagoras on Aug. 27 2007,17:51

Apparently I've inspired Joe to  < produce > CSI for Dummies:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
CSI stands for Complex Specified Information

Complex meaning it is not simple. Complex meaning it is intricate. And complex because it contains many parts or facets.

(Wm. Dembski takes that meaning and gives it a mathematical form. He does so, because like Galileo before him, he sees science as incomplete without the mathematics. You put something in mathematical form and then someone else can check it. But dummies can't understand this and that is why I created this post)

Specified meaning something is indicated or defined, in detail. A good set of assembly instructions specifies what part goes where and as well as the order to put them together.

Information meaning it is communicated data.


IOW complex specified information is a term to differentiate between Shannon Information and information that has a specific meaning.

Shannon information does not care about content or meaning, ie it does not care about specification. All the weight goes to the number of characters transmitted..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't keep track of how that definition differs from all the previous ones.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 27 2007,18:11

It makes explicit the fact that what antievolutionists are talking about when they say "information" is "meaning".
Posted by: khan on Aug. 27 2007,22:19

Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 27 2007,14:16)
Quote (blipey @ Aug. 27 2007,13:54)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 27 2007,12:53)
I've caught UD regular Joe G at my UD-inspired < blogtrap >.  He's a persistent little guy.  Does anybody want to come over  and help me whack him around for a bit?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe should work in a sideshow tent.  Truly a wonder of the modern world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You bet.  What a maroon.  And thanks for the help blipey (and Smokey).  

Joe G has provided me with a new line for my sig:

"I will show you what you want when you show up at my door."  

Tard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds like a country song.
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 28 2007,06:49

Quote (khan @ Aug. 27 2007,22:19)
?
Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 27 2007,14:16)
?
Quote (blipey @ Aug. 27 2007,13:54)
? ?
Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 27 2007,12:53)
I've caught UD regular Joe G at my UD-inspired < blogtrap >. ?He's a persistent little guy. ?Does anybody want to come over ?and help me whack him around for a bit?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe should work in a sideshow tent. ?Truly a wonder of the modern world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You bet. ?What a maroon. ?And thanks for the help blipey (and Smokey). ?

Joe G has provided me with a new line for my sig:

"I will show you what you want when you show up at my door." ?

Tard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds like a country song.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Iambic quadrameter tetrameter (first syllable dropped).

Zachriel's Homework:
< http://phrontistery.info/numbers.html >
Posted by: Hermagoras on Aug. 28 2007,07:30

Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 28 2007,06:49)
Quote (khan @ Aug. 27 2007,22:19)
 
Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 27 2007,14:16)
   
Quote (blipey @ Aug. 27 2007,13:54)
?  
Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 27 2007,12:53)
I've caught UD regular Joe G at my UD-inspired < blogtrap >. ?He's a persistent little guy. ?Does anybody want to come over ?and help me whack him around for a bit?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe should work in a sideshow tent. ?Truly a wonder of the modern world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You bet. ?What a maroon. ?And thanks for the help blipey (and Smokey). ?

Joe G has provided me with a new line for my sig:

"I will show you what you want when you show up at my door." ?

Tard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds like a country song.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Iambic quadrameter (first syllable dropped).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's "tetrameter" (there's no such meter as quadrameter) but who's counting? :D  

Versions of a chorus for the Joe G country ID anthem (refrain modified for meter).



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You say I got no evidence
and that my argument is poor
I'll show you what you want
soon as you show up at my door

You say I got my finest thoughts
at the creationism store?
I'll show you what you want
soon as you show up at my door.

You want to know what scientists
I have used to wipe the floor?
I'll show you what you want
soon as you show up at my door.

You don't believe me when I say
I've used the EF once and more?
I'll show you what you want
soon as you show up at my door.

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


Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 28 2007,09:56

Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 28 2007,07:30)
? ? ?
Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 28 2007,06:49)
? ? ? ?
Quote (khan @ Aug. 27 2007,22:19)
? ? ?
Sounds like a country song.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Iambic quadrameter (first syllable dropped).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's "tetrameter" (there's no such meter as quadrameter) but who's counting? :D ?

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


Oh, tomatoe paste.


Unus, duo, tres, quattuor ...
Ena, dio, tria, tessera ...
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Aug. 28 2007,10:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
CSI stands for Complex Specified Information

Complex meaning it is not simple. Complex meaning it is intricate. And complex because it contains many parts or facets.

(Wm. Dembski takes that meaning and gives it a mathematical form. He does so, because like Galileo before him, he sees science as incomplete without the mathematics. You put something in mathematical form and then someone else can check it. But dummies can't understand this and that is why I created this post)

Specified meaning something is indicated or defined, in detail. A good set of assembly instructions specifies what part goes where and as well as the order to put them together.

Information meaning it is communicated data.


IOW complex specified information is a term to differentiate between Shannon Information and information that has a specific meaning.

Shannon information does not care about content or meaning, ie it does not care about specification. All the weight goes to the number of characters transmitted..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



maybe it's just me (nahh, probly not) but I don't see any information in there.  CSI or otherwise.  sounds like a speech given by Ernie Fletcher or GW Bush.
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 28 2007,11:09

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 28 2007,10:03)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You put something in mathematical form and then someone else can check it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Haven't there been threads on PT where somebody did in fact check Dembski's "mathematical form"? What were the results of that check, again? :p
Posted by: Rob on Aug. 28 2007,11:14

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 27 2007,18:11)
It makes explicit the fact that what antievolutionists are talking about when they say "information" is "meaning".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is indeed what IDists mean, even though none of Dembski's definitions support that interpretation.  It just goes to show that IDists don't read Dembski -- they just use his buzzwords and make up their own definitions.

I've < already corrected > Joe on this, but he's impervious to correction.  < Joe says >:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
IOW complex specified information is a term to differentiate between Shannon Information and information that has a specific meaning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Dembski says the opposite on page 147 of NFL:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To define CSI requires only the mereological and statistical aspects of information. No syntax or theory of meaning is required.
...
In particular, the intelligent agent need not assign a meaning to the pattern.
...
Neither CSI nor semantic information presupposes the other. This in my view is a tremendous asset of CSI, for it allows one to detect design without necessarily determining the function, purpose, or meaning of a thing that is designed (which is not to say that function, purpose, or meaning may not be useful in identifying a specification, but they are not mandated).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And Joe still doesn't understand that "complexity" in CSI refers to improbability rather than actual complexity.  Says Joe:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
CSI stands for Complex Specified Information

Complex meaning it is not simple. Complex meaning it is intricate. And complex because it contains many parts or facets.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I've already pointed out to Joe repeatedly that many of Dembski's examples are, in fact, very simple, eg the Caputo sequence, a simple narrowband signal, and the monolith in 2001 A Space Odyssey.  And I've provided many quotes where Dembski explicitly equates specified complexity with specified improbability.  But like most IDists, Joe doesn't care about Dembski's actual meaning.  After all, it's not like anyone actually uses Dembski's methods.

So Joe doesn't understand specification or complexity, which means that Joe doesn't understand anything about CSI.
Posted by: k.e on Aug. 28 2007,11:45

This is going back aways now but on PT just before the Dover judgment Sal rode in and tried to clear up Demski's definitions for CSI etc etc.

It was like watching a guy trying to stand on ball bearings in slippery boots on wet rocks.

He forgot that some people actually have memories that last for more than 3 seconds.

When asked to define CSI in Standard English without using the words complex, specified or information he lost the plot and blew a gasket.

The private definition that Dembski uses for his pseudo math is typical crackpot behavior, like that guy trying to sue PZ. What?s his name again?


BWHAHhahahahahahahahahahhehehehehehehehe

*snigger*

How much shit can these guys eat?
Posted by: blipey on Aug. 28 2007,11:46

Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 27 2007,15:24)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 27 2007,15:16)
Quote (blipey @ Aug. 27 2007,15:08)
Joe is the Maytag Man. ?The Frigidaire Biologist. ?The Astrophysicist of the Deep Freeze. ?The Kitchen Muslim....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really? ? He's a repairman? ?Fantastic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, sure, in a manner. He works for General Electric, which does makes consumer appliances.  They also make jet engines, railroad locomotives, medical imaging equipment, and desalination plants to name a few.

Has Joe actually stated what he does service?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not sure if he has made that explicit.  He once told me, however, that he worked on stuff that required an extra-special, top secret clearance and that was the reason he couldn't discuss any of his job qualifications.

He never did answer my inquiry into whether or not the NSA was happy that he constantly jawed about his security clearances, place of work, and home address all in the same 3 sentences.
Posted by: k.e on Aug. 28 2007,11:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He never did answer my inquiry into whether or not the NSA was happy that he constantly jawed about his security clearances, place of work, and home address all in the same 3 sentences.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Shhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!

He's hoping Dt/Di will inform homeland secuirty that someone told someone else that he is a security risk.

(added just in case joe reads this ....don't feel important? Call in the black helicopters)
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 29 2007,12:25

This Joeism was posted on Uncommon Descent, so I wasn't sure whether to post it here or on the Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread.

Anyway, the issue is < Joe's progressive use of quotes >.
Posted by: slpage on Aug. 31 2007,13:00

Quote (blipey @ Aug. 28 2007,11:46)
Not sure if he has made that explicit. ?He once told me, however, that he worked on stuff that required an extra-special, top secret clearance and that was the reason he couldn't discuss any of his job qualifications.

He never did answer my inquiry into whether or not the NSA was happy that he constantly jawed about his security clearances, place of work, and home address all in the same 3 sentences.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He has also claimed that he had to take an IQ test for his job, and boasted on the KCFS forum that he did it very quickly, and that the title of his job has the term 'scientist' in it.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 31 2007,13:02

Quote (slpage @ Aug. 31 2007,13:00)
Quote (blipey @ Aug. 28 2007,11:46)
Not sure if he has made that explicit. ?He once told me, however, that he worked on stuff that required an extra-special, top secret clearance and that was the reason he couldn't discuss any of his job qualifications.

He never did answer my inquiry into whether or not the NSA was happy that he constantly jawed about his security clearances, place of work, and home address all in the same 3 sentences.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He has also claimed that he had to take an IQ test for his job, and boasted on the KCFS forum that he did it very quickly, and that the title of his job has the term 'scientist' in it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, if atheism is a religion, then "not scientist" is a job!
;)
Posted by: Hermagoras on Sep. 04 2007,18:02

Joe's back on < my blog. >  He refuses to admit he's wrong.  Surprise!

That is: my joke blog pro-science (linked above), not paralepsis.
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on Sep. 05 2007,01:58

Quote (Hermagoras @ Sep. 04 2007,18:02)
Joe's back on < my blog. > ?He refuses to admit he's wrong. ?Surprise!

That is: my joke blog pro-science (linked above), not paralepsis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For a shot of stupid, I looked at this.

Joe G pours with a heavy hand.
Posted by: Hermagoras on Sep. 06 2007,09:19

Has anybody experienced anything < threatening > from Joe G?  He recently responded to a comment on his blog by identifying me by name and by my institution.  I < responded > on my blog and his, but I'd like to know of previous instances like this.
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 06 2007,09:48

Quote (Hermagoras @ Sep. 06 2007,09:19)
Has anybody experienced anything < threatening > from Joe G? ?He recently responded to a comment on his blog by identifying me by name and by my institution. ?I < responded > on my blog and his, but I'd like to know of previous instances like this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interesting... I'm thinking that Ed Brayton or one of his lawyerly minions might have some good feedback about this.

Looks to me though, as if Joe G is  a Creo On The Edge - of course most of them are.   :)

Keep us appraised, and don't let Sal cover your back!
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 06 2007,10:03

Watching Davescot, Dembski, Salvador, FtK, etc, over the years, I have to say that personality issues are not foreign to them.
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 06 2007,10:04

Oh yeah.  That's all JoeG has really, are threats.  I find it funny that he equates threats with evidence, but I really think he's too lazy to execute any of them.

While never quite reaching the DaveScot threat level, JoeG once told me he could kill me if I showed up at his door.  This was after he invited me to show up at his door.

Since he's published it before in his invites to come and challenge him:

Joe Gallien; Manchester, NH

I'll leave it to him to tell you his address; though he's also published this before.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 06 2007,10:08

Quote (blipey @ Sep. 06 2007,11:04)
JoeG once told me he could kill me if I showed up at his door.  This was after he invited me to show up at his door.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Showing that Joe G is on exactly Homer Simpson's level.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   Wiggum: And once a man is in your home, anything you do to him is nice and legal.
   Homer: Is that so? Oh, Flanders! Won't you join me in my kitchen?
   Wiggum: Uh, it doesn't work if you invite him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: argystokes on Sep. 06 2007,11:04

Quote (Hermagoras @ Sep. 06 2007,07:19)
Has anybody experienced anything < threatening > from Joe G?  He recently responded to a comment on his blog by identifying me by name and by my institution.  I < responded > on my blog and his, but I'd like to know of previous instances like this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


PM Occam's Aftershave. I know he's got some stories!
Posted by: Hermagoras on Sep. 06 2007,11:23

< In Which I cry "Uncle" to Joe G >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe G has taken to physically threatening me if I do not stipulate that what he says he meant now is what he meant then. He also knows who I am, and where I work, and he lives not too far from me. He has said, "And I am being very generous by saying that on this blog as opposed to driving a few miles to say it to your face," and also "I will do whatever it takes to stop it." So, agreed Joe G. You win. What you say you meant now is what you meant then.

Someone identified your name and town on this blog, and like a decent person, I deleted it.

See how we can resolve arguments amicably?

I'm so glad you are able to convince people by way of reasoned argument.

Also, I'm fat.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Rob on Sep. 06 2007,11:30

Joe G and JAD are in a class of their own when it comes to instability.  There's gotta be something in the New England water.  Do you drink Evian, Hermagoras?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 06 2007,11:35

Quote (Hermagoras @ Sep. 06 2007,11:23)
< In Which I cry "Uncle" to Joe G >:
?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe G has taken to physically threatening me if I do not stipulate that what he says he meant now is what he meant then. He also knows who I am, and where I work, and he lives not too far from me. He has said, "And I am being very generous by saying that on this blog as opposed to driving a few miles to say it to your face," and also "I will do whatever it takes to stop it." So, agreed Joe G. You win. What you say you meant now is what you meant then.

Someone identified your name and town on this blog, and like a decent person, I deleted it.

See how we can resolve arguments amicably?

I'm so glad you are able to convince people by way of reasoned argument.

Also, I'm fat.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Joe's from New Hampshire, right?

Better not mess with Joe. He's got big muscles from pushing around all those washing machines and ovens.

Actually, I suspect our Joe is firmly in the David Springer category of "ID Pseudo-Tough Guy". In other words, if you visited him at his home, he'd turn off all the lights and pretend not to be home.
Posted by: Hermagoras on Sep. 06 2007,11:37

Quote (Rob @ Sep. 06 2007,11:30)
Joe G and JAD are in a class of their own when it comes to instability.  There's gotta be something in the New England water.  Do you drink Evian, Hermagoras?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If Joe G is in New Hampshire, we drink different water.  Mine comes from the mighty < Quabbin >, and it's fine indeed.
Posted by: Steverino on Sep. 06 2007,11:41

Quote (Hermagoras @ Sep. 06 2007,11:37)
Quote (Rob @ Sep. 06 2007,11:30)
Joe G and JAD are in a class of their own when it comes to instability. ?There's gotta be something in the New England water. ?Do you drink Evian, Hermagoras?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If Joe G is in New Hampshire, we drink different water. ?Mine comes from the mighty < Quabbin >, and it's fine indeed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then I must be south of your location.

Did you ever see the Quabbin special on PBS?  Fantastic special with divers diving the bottom to show the old town, bridge and railroad and golf course remains.
Posted by: Hermagoras on Sep. 06 2007,11:51

Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 06 2007,11:41)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Sep. 06 2007,11:37)
 
Quote (Rob @ Sep. 06 2007,11:30)
Joe G and JAD are in a class of their own when it comes to instability. ?There's gotta be something in the New England water. ?Do you drink Evian, Hermagoras?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If Joe G is in New Hampshire, we drink different water. ?Mine comes from the mighty < Quabbin >, and it's fine indeed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then I must be south of your location.

Did you ever see the Quabbin special on PBS?  Fantastic special with divers diving the bottom to show the old town, bridge and railroad and golf course remains.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm in the Boston area.  As to documentaries, I only know < Haunting the Quabbin >, a great radio documentary produced by WBUR.  The former town residents still hold ceremonial town meetings every year.  Very poignant.  

Also there's James Tate's poem "Quabbin Reservoir" (in Distance from Loved Ones, 1990), which includes the following passage:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There was a village at the bottom of the lake,
and I could just make out the old post office,
and, occasionally, when the light struck it just right,
I glimpsed several mailmen swimming in or out of it,
letters and packages escaping randomly, 1938, 1937,
it didn't matter to them any longer.  Void.
No such address.

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


Posted by: Hermagoras on Sep. 06 2007,12:15

Not content with identifying me by name in comments, Joe G has put me in the subject line of two of his posts at Intelligent [sic] Reasoning.  

Edited:  Links removed from this post.
Posted by: Steverino on Sep. 06 2007,12:47

Quote (Hermagoras @ Sep. 06 2007,11:51)
Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 06 2007,11:41)
 
Quote (Hermagoras @ Sep. 06 2007,11:37)
?
Quote (Rob @ Sep. 06 2007,11:30)
Joe G and JAD are in a class of their own when it comes to instability. ?There's gotta be something in the New England water. ?Do you drink Evian, Hermagoras?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If Joe G is in New Hampshire, we drink different water. ?Mine comes from the mighty < Quabbin >, and it's fine indeed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then I must be south of your location.

Did you ever see the Quabbin special on PBS? ?Fantastic special with divers diving the bottom to show the old town, bridge and railroad and golf course remains.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm in the Boston area. ?As to documentaries, I only know < Haunting the Quabbin >, a great radio documentary produced by WBUR. ?The former town residents still hold ceremonial town meetings every year. ?Very poignant. ?

Also there's James Tate's poem "Quabbin Reservoir" (in Distance from Loved Ones, 1990), which includes the following passage:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There was a village at the bottom of the lake,
and I could just make out the old post office,
and, occasionally, when the light struck it just right,
I glimpsed several mailmen swimming in or out of it,
letters and packages escaping randomly, 1938, 1937,
it didn't matter to them any longer. ?Void.
No such address.

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


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


It was called, "Under Quabbin"

They run it from time to time. Well worth the watch.

< http://shop.wgbh.org/product/show/8577 >

I'm in NE Connecticut and work in Springfield.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Sep. 06 2007,12:47

Quote (Hermagoras @ Sep. 06 2007,12:15)
Not content with identifying me by name in comments, Joe G has put me in the subject line of two of his posts at Intelligent [sic] Reasoning... ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Disturbing but fascinating. I would sugest that you remove the links. Joe G may not do anything but some other nutcase might.

Is there no legal means to go after Joe G for doing this? Perhaps you should consult a legal expert. Make sure it isn't Larry Fafarman though.

Joe G, what a childish wanker. His employer might also be interested in his behaviour. I hope you are keeping records of these antics.
Posted by: Steverino on Sep. 06 2007,13:09

To parphrase from "Fletch"

"...Joe G. molests collies."
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 06 2007,13:37

You mean the employer that doesn't mind that Joe tells everyone under the sun that he has super-crackerjack-and-mike-and-ike-ultra-deep-foil-hat-top-secret clearance?
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Sep. 06 2007,14:00

Quote (blipey @ Sep. 06 2007,13:37)
You mean the employer that doesn't mind that Joe tells everyone under the sun that he has super-crackerjack-and-mike-and-ike-ultra-deep-foil-hat-top-secret clearance?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't understand what you are saying.

Do you have evidence that Joe G's employer knows about his internet activities and doesn't care?
Does Joe G actually work in a vetted environment on secret classified subjects? He may well do. But vetting is quite concerned with honesty.

The questions could go on. I am not trying to interogate you though. I just do not understand what you are claiming and would like some clarification.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 06 2007,14:36

Wait, isn't there some Joe Gallien legend from a couple years back where he got canned from his job for blogging during working hours or something like that?

(You know, around the same time period when he was a Muslim for a couple hours.)
Posted by: Rob on Sep. 06 2007,14:48

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 06 2007,14:36)
Wait, isn't there some Joe Gallien legend from a couple years back where he got canned from his job for blogging during working hours or something like that?

(You know, around the same time period when he was a Muslim for a couple hours.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One and the same, although he denies that his termination was related to his internet threats.

And < here's > one for the he's-even-dumber-than-we-thought file.  Joe actually thinks that the evolution of the vision system should be attributable to a certain gene or set of genes:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, genes don't hang around for hundreds of thousands of years directing mutation and selection.

Can you verify that answer scientifically?

Or is assertion the best you have?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 06 2007,15:01

Quote (Rob @ Sep. 06 2007,14:48)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 06 2007,14:36)
Wait, isn't there some Joe Gallien legend from a couple years back where he got canned from his job for blogging during working hours or something like that?

(You know, around the same time period when he was a Muslim for a couple hours.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One and the same, although he denies that his termination was related to his internet threats.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, he was canned for actually threatening people online during working hours? Who and how?

That story's even better!
Posted by: Rob on Sep. 06 2007,15:06

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 06 2007,15:01)
Oh, he was canned for actually threatening people online during working hours? Who and how?

That story's even better!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think it was on the old NAiG site.  I don't know if it's archived any longer.  If someone remembers the old URL, maybe they can check the Wayback Machine.

< Here > are a couple of posts at Telic Snots discussing it after the fact.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 06 2007,15:18

Quote (Rob @ Sep. 06 2007,15:06)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 06 2007,15:01)
Oh, he was canned for actually threatening people online during working hours? Who and how?

That story's even better!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think it was on the old NAiG site. ?I don't know if it's archived any longer. ?If someone remembers the old URL, maybe they can check the Wayback Machine.

< Here > are a couple of posts at Telic Snots discussing it after the fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have watched this with some fascination. It is amazing how short Joe's memory is. When he first started posting at NAiG (before Stratus told him to hit the road) he actually made threats from his work computer. That's how one of the posters there learned his identity - the IP traced to Joe Gallien at Stratus Computers. It is too funny to see Joe try to rewrite history. I don't blame him, as shameful as his conduct has been.

As far as "nothing happening to him", well take that with a grain of salt. He no longer works for that employer, and it was not by his choice. After he was let go, he came back to NAiG making a lot of noise about getting even. That's a fact.

TP
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Joe's just the gift that keeps on giving.
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 06 2007,16:07

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 06 2007,14:00)
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 06 2007,13:37)
You mean the employer that doesn't mind that Joe tells everyone under the sun that he has super-crackerjack-and-mike-and-ike-ultra-deep-foil-hat-top-secret clearance?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't understand what you are saying.

Do you have evidence that Joe G's employer knows about his internet activities and doesn't care?
Does Joe G actually work in a vetted environment on secret classified subjects? He may well do. But vetting is quite concerned with honesty.

The questions could go on. I am not trying to interogate you though. I just do not understand what you are claiming and would like some clarification.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a reference to an answer joe gave me once as to why he couldn't talk about his qualifications to talk about an subject he may or may not know something about.

We were having a discussion as to what his qualifications for setting curriculum were.  He said he'd tell me when I showed up at his door.  As he had previously posted his address, I said I'd be stopping by.  He then told me that he couldn't share any of his expertise because he had top-secret clearance and his job involved secret government operations.

I like to point this out to Joe as much as I possibly can.
Posted by: silverspoon on Sep. 06 2007,18:26

Joe G made similar threats against Dr. Scott Page and Dr. ?Joe Meert. I believe he posted Meert?s home address and said something to Page about driving thru his town to go skiing. I seem to remember Joe posting Meerts address at the Baptist Board evo/creto debate pages. And his threats against Page at some other board. Both Meert and Page at the time took what Joe said as implied threats. There was more than that, but that?s all I can remember.

The person that had something to do with Joe?s workplace fiasco was Robert Rapier. Robert was debating Walter Remine at a now defunct creto board, as was Page and Joe G around the same time all the threats happened. ?Joe had made some threats against Rapier somewhere along the line also. I think that was documented on the NAIG web site.

Dredging up all these memories has Joe?s asinine comments reverberating in my head. The guy has said such stupid things over the years that my head explodes when I remember them. Like, he?d accept a fossil of a hoofed reptile as something being truly transitional, and Saturn is where it is to protect humans from comets.

By the way. As far as I know everyone he has threatened is still living, and Joe hasn?t shown up at anyone?s door. The guy?s just a prick with ears. Otherwise harmless.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 06 2007,19:53

Quote (silverspoon @ Sep. 06 2007,19:26)
The guy's just a prick with ears.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


*Fires up Photoshop. Then thinks better of it.*
Posted by: khan on Sep. 06 2007,20:40

Could it be:

< http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin....&nl=fix >

Hate email to columnist Mark Morford, second one down.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 06 2007,21:14

I don't know, but some of those are pretty unintentionally funny.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There's no better example of an elitist, condescending, snide and UNINFORMED liberal progressive. A commune-living, bike-riding environmentalist could write a scathing article like this, ripping your Audi (I think you wrote an article on it), which you must assume runs on progressive ideals or your sex toys instead of gasoline. But they DON'T -- because they are different than simple, narcissist progressives, who pat themselves on the back for being marginally less polluting than the next guy. You're sick, offensive and laughably hypocritical -- you're a perfect San Francisco progressive liberal. I've been reading your nonsense since 2002 and I have no idea why.

-Brendan
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 06 2007,21:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can't believe your audacity. We live in a death culture where people are contracepting, murdering children on a daily basis (abortion), and the world's population is growing eerily older as we speak. There will be no more children to support your sorry bum when you are older. Why?? Because NO ONE is having children!!! There will be no more social security and no more "workers" in your nursing home. Why?? Because you all chose to have no more children. Look at Europe!! The Muslims are taking over because the Europeans are too selfish to have kids of their own!!!!!!
God Bless You.

-KP
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The funny thing is you could probably get this guy to say that them damn teenagers are having way too many babies.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 07 2007,09:01

Quote (khan @ Sep. 06 2007,20:40)
Could it be:

< http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin....&nl=fix >

Hate email to columnist Mark Morford, second one down.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I saw that and thought the same thing. But would New Hampshire Joe bother to send hate mail to a California columnist?

Besides, our Joe is a Muslim, not a Mormon.  :p
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 07 2007,09:11

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 06 2007,21:14)
I don't know, but some of those are pretty unintentionally funny.

? ?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There's no better example of an elitist, condescending, snide and UNINFORMED liberal progressive. A commune-living, bike-riding environmentalist could write a scathing article like this, ripping your Audi (I think you wrote an article on it), which you must assume runs on progressive ideals or your sex toys instead of gasoline. But they DON'T -- because they are different than simple, narcissist progressives, who pat themselves on the back for being marginally less polluting than the next guy. You're sick, offensive and laughably hypocritical -- you're a perfect San Francisco progressive liberal. I've been reading your nonsense since 2002 and I have no idea why.

-Brendan
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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



(When they pull out the insult 'elitist' in the first sentence, you know they're gonna have nothing to say.)

Wow, he's the wingnut and HE'S been reading Morford for 5 years, while I'm the wicked Islamofascist liberal who's destroying America and almost never bother to read Morford. Funny how that works.

There is a funny dynamic among Bay Area/SF wingnuts. Wingnuts are so massively outnumbered and disenfranchised here, that they tend to become much more hysterical and defensive than their counterparts in areas where they dominate. A wingnut in, say, Texas can be complacent in the knowledge that he lives in an area where people just like him run everything. Out here where people laugh at folks like that and Bush has around 10-15% approval, wingnuts act epecially put upon and shreiky, like they're horribly persecuted and upset that no one invites them to parties anymore once they tell everyone how cool Ann Coulter is. I think Dan White was a very early example of this.

For example, I am sorry to say that SF spawned Michael Savage. QED.
Posted by: Hermagoras on Sep. 09 2007,10:58

Could somebody chime in over at Joe G's blog?  I've accepted, under duress, his claim that he's really saying that nobody knows anything about the genes responsible for the origin of the visual system.  But even there he's wrong, as I've pointed out (Pax6 and related genes seem to be well established in that regard).  But he's really obsessed with me, calling me out by name, etc. I'm not sure what to do.
Posted by: slpage on Sep. 09 2007,14:49

Quote (silverspoon @ Sep. 06 2007,18:26)
Joe G made similar threats against Dr. Scott Page and Dr. ?Joe Meert. I believe he posted Meert?s home address and said something to Page about driving thru his town to go skiing. I seem to remember Joe posting Meerts address at the Baptist Board evo/creto debate pages. And his threats against Page at some other board. Both Meert and Page at the time took what Joe said as implied threats. There was more than that, but that?s all I can remember.

The person that had something to do with Joe?s workplace fiasco was Robert Rapier. Robert was debating Walter Remine at a now defunct creto board, as was Page and Joe G around the same time all the threats happened. ?Joe had made some threats against Rapier somewhere along the line also. I think that was documented on the NAIG web site.

Dredging up all these memories has Joe?s asinine comments reverberating in my head. The guy has said such stupid things over the years that my head explodes when I remember them. Like, he?d accept a fossil of a hoofed reptile as something being truly transitional, and Saturn is where it is to protect humans from comets.

By the way. As far as I know everyone he has threatened is still living, and Joe hasn?t shown up at anyone?s door. The guy?s just a prick with ears. Otherwise harmless.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, he mentioned that 'not everyone drives through (my town) to go skiing.'  This was after he had oh-so-cleverly put my address in his signature line.  It was as if he thought those who he threatened would just retract all of our statements and declare his every utterance truth and factual because we would be all a-scared of him or something.  
Also, while Robert Rapier was involved in the discussions at the time, and Joe had 'challenged' him to come say things to his face and such, he did not contact Joe's employer, and I do not know who did.  Generally, I am against such activities (as I have actually had creationists threaten to contact my colleagues and my employer not because I threatened them - I have never done anything like that - but because I showed them to be wrong, ignorant, etc.), but in Joe's case, I think the fact that he was making threats from his place of work (he was also posting as two people at the time, claiming that his 'alter ego' was a coworker, one 'Cool Hand Luke', who also tried to intimidate people he disagreed with) to multiple people warranted some sort of intervention.  It wasn't as if tempers flared and one discussant writes 'I'll kick you ass!", he was actively stalking people, posting personal information about them on the net, and making implicit threats, all because he could not handle the fact that he was (and still is) too underinformed on the issues he tried to discuss and was put in is place.

He also tried to 'arrange' meetings between himself and one 'Skeptic boy' and I at least 2 other people if I remember correctly, and each time, he mysteriously stopped posting for several days.  On one occasion, he actually claimed to have been at the place that where one of these 'meetings' was to take place, but he was unable to describe the place.

He is s typical bully.  A coward at heart.

By the way - just in case anyone might need such information, he let it slip one time that he had had surgery on his lower back...
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 09 2007,17:22

Quote (Hermagoras @ Sep. 09 2007,10:58)
Could somebody chime in over at Joe G's blog?  I've accepted, under duress, his claim that he's really saying that nobody knows anything about the genes responsible for the origin of the visual system.  But even there he's wrong, as I've pointed out (Pax6 and related genes seem to be well established in that regard).  But he's really obsessed with me, calling me out by name, etc. I'm not sure what to do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you think anyone finds Joe's arguments convincing? Other than those who already agree with him? If not, then his arguments don't need debunking. Dembski and others did have people bamboozled for a while. But the < non-reality based movement > is at the end of its latest manifestation.

Of course, the other reason to comment is for fun. Just don't take it too seriously. I think you have acquited yourself well in your discussion with Joe. Readers may get lost in details, so stick to the basics. Joe will readily hang himself.

< Clogging (Commenting on Blogs) >
Posted by: Hermagoras on Sep. 09 2007,17:55

Thanks Z.  I'm afraid I just got a little freaked out when he started exhibiting stalker behavior (mentioning where I live, for example) on his blog.  I'm fine now.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 09 2007,19:12

"I know where you live!"

"You and millions of identity thieves and phishing scammers. Great company you have there. Were you saying something about having an actual argument?"
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 09 2007,19:23

Quote (Hermagoras @ Sep. 09 2007,17:55)
Thanks Z.  I'm afraid I just got a little freaked out when he started exhibiting stalker behavior (mentioning where I live, for example) on his blog.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


DaveScot has been known to employ that particular rhetorical device, too.

Maybe it deserves to be listed at TalkOrigins as a Creationist fallacy. Argumentum ad addressum?


(Okay, so I never took Latin, so sue me.)

PS: I guess it's a subcategory of < this >.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 09 2007,23:29

< https://www.blogger.com/comment....3429519 >




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As for the BC game thingy- that meant if I really wanted to, if I was really threatening you, I could have dropped by. After-all I was with my boys.

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





[/B]
Posted by: Hermagoras on Sep. 10 2007,00:00

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 09 2007,23:29)
< https://www.blogger.com/comment....3429519 >


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As for the BC game thingy- that meant if I really wanted to, if I was really threatening you, I could have dropped by. After-all I was with my boys.

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





[/B]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hilarious.
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 10 2007,00:12

Joe's the one with the little whizzer.
Posted by: Rob on Sep. 10 2007,11:04



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He once told me, however, that he worked on stuff that required an extra-special, top secret clearance and that was the reason he couldn't discuss any of his job qualifications.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Knowing Joe, this probably means that his job consists of collecting unemployment.  I mean, c'mon, can you imagine Joe surviving in the workplace, or any other environment that requires a modicum of rationality and emotional stability?

Joe's boss:  Joe, you said that this project would take two months.  What happened?

Joe:  Reality says that "two months" means "July and December".  Ya see, in the end, all you can do is quote-mine and take things out of context.  Thanks for demonstrating that you're a @#%*% #*$%@!

Joe's boss:  You're fired, you sociopathic cretin.

Joe: You're a sociopathic cretin.

Posted by: Rob on Sep. 10 2007,12:27

Quote (slpage @ Sep. 09 2007,14:49)
A coward at heart.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's another tale of Brave Sir Joe:

< I proposed > to Joe that we ask Dembski about one of our disagreements.  I also proposed some stakes:  Whoever turned out to be wrong, according to Dembski, would never post about ID on the internet again.

In < Joe's response >, he ignored the proposed bet, so < I repeated it >.

< Joe responded > with a quote from Meyer that supposedly supported Joe's position, and asked, "Do you still want to bet?"

< I answered >, "Absolutely. I'm just waiting for you to say yes."

< Joe's responded > with, "BTW I would love to bet you but I can only wager with honest people."

And he < followed that up > with, "Also getting you not to post has no value to me. IOW once Dembski confirms I am correct I won't really "win" anything (if we did bet)."

< My response >: "Okay, then what do you want the stakes to be? As this is a bet that you're sure to win, I'm sure you'll want to bet something really big."

I also proposed a separate wager on another issue that we were in the middle of debating, once again with Dembski as the judge.

< Joe's response >: "Ya see secondclass- no matter what the wager you will never pay up."

< My long response >:

"In which case, you would report my welching to the ID and anti-ID communities, which would be pretty embarrassing for me.

"My point in proposing the bets is for us to show that we stand behind our claims enough to put something at risk. Otherwise, we're all talk, and this discussion isn't worth our while. Talk is cheap.

"Besides, since you're obviously going to win both bets, you have nothing to lose, right? So I don't understand your reluctance to accept the bets."

< Joe responds with more weaseling >, concluding with, "I explained my reluctance. That you can't even understand my simple explanation is very telling."

< My parting comment >: "Well, Joe, the proposed wagers stand. If you ever decide to take me up on them, you can let me know in a comment at any of the high profile sites, ie Uncommon Descent, Pandas Thumb, etc. Until then, best wishes to you and your blog."

< To which Joe responded >, bizarrely, that I never even made any claims on which to bet: "And everything I said still stands.  Until you make a claim there cannot be any wager."


So there you have it.  Joe can't muster the measly courage to accept bets that would be adjudicated by Dembski himself, and for which Joe would get to choose the stakes.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 10 2007,13:06

Wow Rob, that's 100% class.

Joe admits there's a potential bet on the table
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also getting you not to post has no value to me. IOW once Dembski confirms I am correct I won't really "win" anything (if we did bet).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And then backs out faster then Dembski from Dover (well not strictly true, Dembski waited around to get paiiiid).

Joe, I'll be linking to that < post > if I ever need a potted summary of "Joe" to explain what you are.

Oneoneone111oneoneone
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 10 2007,13:45

Quote (Rob @ Sep. 10 2007,12:27)
 
Quote (slpage @ Sep. 09 2007,14:49)
A coward at heart.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's another tale of Brave Sir Joe:

< ...Joe's responded > with, "BTW I would love to bet you but I can only wager with honest people."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wagers are the key. They demonstrate that on some cognitive level below the telencephalon, all of these people know that they are lying, and have nothing resembling faith in their position.

We all should use this technique more often.
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 10 2007,13:51

Quote (Rob @ Sep. 10 2007,11:04)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He once told me, however, that he worked on stuff that required an extra-special, top secret clearance and that was the reason he couldn't discuss any of his job qualifications.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Knowing Joe, this probably means that his job consists of collecting unemployment.  I mean, c'mon, can you imagine Joe surviving in the workplace, or any other environment that requires a modicum of rationality and emotional stability?

Joe's boss:  Joe, you said that this project would take two months.  What happened?

Joe:  Reality says that "two months" means "July and December".  Ya see, in the end, all you can do is quote-mine and take things out of context.  Thanks for demonstrating that you're a @#%*% #*$%@!

Joe's boss:  You're fired, you sociopathic cretin.

Joe: You're a sociopathic cretin.

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


I would like to nominate Rob's comment as Comment of the Month in the category of "Most Exact Channeling of an IDiot"

Superb, sir.
Posted by: Rob on Sep. 10 2007,14:41

Oh, and < another one > of Joe's excuses that I forgot to mention:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To me, betting with imbeciles is not a fruitful endeavor.

And betting with anonymous imbeciles is just not worth my time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's strange.  Most people consider betting with imbeciles to be very fruitful.  Easy money.
Posted by: Rob on Sep. 10 2007,14:49

Quote (blipey @ Sep. 10 2007,13:51)
I would like to nominate Rob's comment as Comment of the Month in the category of "Most Exact Channeling of an IDiot"

Superb, sir.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Coming from the master of ID mockery, that's a high compliment indeed.  Thank you.
Posted by: Hermagoras on Sep. 11 2007,12:00

Joe G's obsession with me continues on his blog.  I've decided to ignore him.  Given his behavior (documented on my blog), I wonder if I might ask people here likewise to ignore his blog entirely?  If he engages me on my blog (< http://pro-science.blogspot.com >) that's one thing, but I'd like to starve him of attention with respect to his little crusade.  

We now return to our usual programming.
Posted by: Rob on Sep. 11 2007,13:11

Quote (Hermagoras @ Sep. 11 2007,12:00)
Joe G's obsession with me continues on his blog.  I've decided to ignore him.  Given his behavior (documented on my blog), I wonder if I might ask people here likewise to ignore his blog entirely?  If he engages me on my blog (< http://pro-science.blogspot.com >) that's one thing, but I'd like to starve him of attention with respect to his little crusade.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As far as shunning Joe's blog, you would think that would be easy to do, given the ugliness of his behavior.  I avoided his site for a long time, but then I made the mistake of reading his comments on your blog, and I got ticked off enough to break my silence with him.  I agree that he's utterly undeserving of anyone's attention, and there's no good reason to take his bait.

I think most of us have a hard time letting falsehoods and fallacies that are accompanied by arrogance and verbal abuse go unchallenged.  I know I do.  I think the thing to remember is that Joe's irrationality and hostility are so far beyond the pale that nobody lends him any credibility, except for those few benighted souls who are on his same level, heaven forbid.  Keeping in mind that correcting him is both unnecessary and futile, maybe I can do a better job of maintaining my silence in the future.
Posted by: Hermagoras on Sep. 11 2007,13:37

Quote (Rob @ Sep. 11 2007,13:11)
   
Quote (Hermagoras @ Sep. 11 2007,12:00)
Joe G's obsession with me continues on his blog.  I've decided to ignore him.  Given his behavior (documented on my blog), I wonder if I might ask people here likewise to ignore his blog entirely?  If he engages me on my blog (< http://pro-science.blogspot.com >) that's one thing, but I'd like to starve him of attention with respect to his little crusade.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As far as shunning Joe's blog, you would think that would be easy to do, given the ugliness of his behavior.  I avoided his site for a long time, but then I made the mistake of reading his comments on your blog, and I got ticked off enough to break my silence with him.  I agree that he's utterly undeserving of anyone's attention, and there's no good reason to take his bait.

I think most of us have a hard time letting falsehoods and fallacies that are accompanied by arrogance and verbal abuse go unchallenged.  I know I do.  I think the thing to remember is that Joe's irrationality and hostility are so far beyond the pale that nobody lends him any credibility, except for those few benighted souls who are on his same level, heaven forbid.  Keeping in mind that correcting him is both unnecessary and futile, maybe I can do a better job of maintaining my silence in the future.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I share the temptation.  Hell, I have drawn attention to his blog even here.  But maybe that's why his blog exists: just to pick fights.  Looking at the comments over there, it's clear that nobody gives a shit about his blog except those who want to correct his stupidity and viciousness.  Seeing as he lives in a universe of his own invention, however, correction so far has failed to take.  

I have liked your comments over there.  A lot.  Maybe the thing to do is just ignore the posts about me.  I'm not really concerned about the other threads.  Meanwhile, I'll not post over there at all.

Whatever you decide is fine by me.  

(I've put a link to the basics of his behavior at the top of the pro-science blog, so it doesn't got away.)
Posted by: guthrie on Sep. 11 2007,13:54

Obviously Joe G needs to be sent to Coventry.
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 11 2007,14:21

I decided to not visit Joe's blog a while ago.  There really is no point in going there.  His moderation policy doesn't allow for commenting in any sort of non-maddening way.  Annd it doesn't do any good.

I will engage Joe anywhere else he shows up; these are the places where he has to show his ugliness to others.  Unfortunately, these are the places he usually runs away from.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 11 2007,16:00

Well, you better stay away from his house.  

I hear he has nunchuck skills.


Posted by: Steverino on Sep. 11 2007,18:18

NO!....Not the Yellow Hornet™!


May the Farce be with you!


I tried to post on his blog...and no dice.  I guess he does not like being called a LIAR.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 11 2007,19:49

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 11 2007,16:00)
Well, you better stay away from his house.  

I hear he has nunchuck skills.


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


No, Joe's real weapon is the < golf ball retriever >.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 13 2007,08:56

MEGATARD!

I'm going to have to reproduce the whole thing in case someone from the reality based community has a word with him, and he deletes it:

< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2007....fi.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thursday, September 13, 2007
The Explanatory Filter (EF) used on the Sci-Fi Channel!
All too often I here cries that the Explanatory Filter is not used by anyone, anywhere. I have always responded that the people who say that do not know how to determine design in the absence of watching the designer at work.

But anuway, the Sci-Fi Channel has a show called "Ghost Hunters". Their methodology on the show captures/ models the EF.

That is with every phenomenon they observe they first try to explain it without calls to "ghosts". IOW they set out to debunk the claim(s) of "ghost(s)".

If they have high EMF readings they try to find a normal electrical source.

If doors open and close in the absence of a person they try to find some "natural" cause.

If shadows move across a room they try to find a "natural" cause.

Only once all possible "natural" causes are ruled out do they come to a paranormal inference.

That is the EF in action!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: blipey on Sep. 13 2007,09:02

That show hs to be my least favorite Sci-Fi Channel offering.  What a horrible piece of shit.  Of course Joe likes it; I'm surprised he just found it.

They basically follow a group of ghostbusters around.  These are not people who are interested in debunking ghosts, rather people who are actively looking for them.

And the real question begged here:

Why has JoeG never applied the EF himself, since it is so easy a group of retards on the Sci-Fi Channel can do it?

So how about it, Joe?  Care to apply the EF to any of the many scenarios that have been proposed to you?
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 13 2007,09:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Only once all possible "natural" causes are ruled out do they come to a paranormal inference.

That is the EF in action!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



OK, I've got it by George!!!

The EF is a UFO anal probe, why didn't they just say so in the first place?
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 13 2007,09:10



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Only once all possible "natural" causes are ruled out do they come to a paranormal inference.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Um...how can they be sure that ALL possible natural casuses have been ruled out?
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 13 2007,09:40

So the people on "Ghost Hunters" are using your methodology, huh....

Not much I have to add to that.
Posted by: Hermagoras on Sep. 13 2007,11:20

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 13 2007,08:56)
MEGATARD!

I'm going to have to reproduce the whole thing in case someone from the reality based community has a word with him, and he deletes it:

< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2007....fi.html >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thursday, September 13, 2007
The Explanatory Filter (EF) used on the Sci-Fi Channel!
All too often I here cries that the Explanatory Filter is not used by anyone, anywhere. I have always responded that the people who say that do not know how to determine design in the absence of watching the designer at work.

But anuway, the Sci-Fi Channel has a show called "Ghost Hunters". Their methodology on the show captures/ models the EF.

That is with every phenomenon they observe they first try to explain it without calls to "ghosts". IOW they set out to debunk the claim(s) of "ghost(s)".

If they have high EMF readings they try to find a normal electrical source.

If doors open and close in the absence of a person they try to find some "natural" cause.

If shadows move across a room they try to find a "natural" cause.

Only once all possible "natural" causes are ruled out do they come to a paranormal inference.

That is the EF in action!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Joe "likes" putting "natural" in "scare quotes" but he can't "spell" the "word" hear.
Posted by: Steverino on Sep. 13 2007,12:03

Joe also makes a huge leap of faith...that the appearance of design proves design.

Joe, again....when concepts that you point out Irreducibly Complex...are explained by "natural" (lol) causes...why does that not invalidate IC???
Posted by: Richardthughes on Dec. 11 2007,18:35

I think I just got banned from dippy Joe's blog!


Woo-Hoo!
Posted by: blipey on Dec. 11 2007,19:08

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 11 2007,18:35)
I think I just got banned from dippy Joe's blog!


Woo-Hoo!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean from this thread:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
New comments have been disabled for this post by a blog administrator.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nice job.

< Linky >
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 11 2007,19:16

Rich you have been hard at work in those tardmines.  That requires perseverance, dedication, and also being a little bit fuct in the old noggin-space.  I salute you sir.  It is hard to waste time any more efficiently than that.  I admit that I cannot even read all of the posts on that blog, but you sir have been a tireless soldier and a diligent defender of all that is not tard.  

I would buy you a beer if you were any where close to here at all.  37920?
Posted by: uriel on Dec. 11 2007,21:36

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 11 2007,18:35)
I think I just got banned from dippy Joe's blog!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Guess I might have had something to do with that, being a "new" poster who apparently couldn't stay 'on topic'. Sorry.

Really, all I was trying to do was helpfully jog the guy's memory as to what that 'constructal theory' thing he was crowing about actually meant.

Given his world-renown, awesomely-awesome membrin' skillz, I thought he'd want to avoid ruining his mad memory rep by looking like he forgot that the article he linked to had nothing to do with the topic at hand. Who knew he had such thin skin? ???
Posted by: Richardthughes on Dec. 11 2007,22:16

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 11 2007,19:16)
Rich you have been hard at work in those tardmines.  That requires perseverance, dedication, and also being a little bit fuct in the old noggin-space.  I salute you sir.  It is hard to waste time any more efficiently than that.  I admit that I cannot even read all of the posts on that blog, but you sir have been a tireless soldier and a diligent defender of all that is not tard.  

I would buy you a beer if you were any where close to here at all.  37920?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


where dat?

60605, me chief.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 11 2007,22:18

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 11 2007,22:16)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 11 2007,19:16)
Rich you have been hard at work in those tardmines.  That requires perseverance, dedication, and also being a little bit fuct in the old noggin-space.  I salute you sir.  It is hard to waste time any more efficiently than that.  I admit that I cannot even read all of the posts on that blog, but you sir have been a tireless soldier and a diligent defender of all that is not tard.  

I would buy you a beer if you were any where close to here at all.  37920?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


where dat?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Googling > zipcodes tells you where they are very quickly. Ras is in Knoxville, Tennessee.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Dec. 11 2007,22:34

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 11 2007,22:18)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 11 2007,22:16)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 11 2007,19:16)
Rich you have been hard at work in those tardmines.  That requires perseverance, dedication, and also being a little bit fuct in the old noggin-space.  I salute you sir.  It is hard to waste time any more efficiently than that.  I admit that I cannot even read all of the posts on that blog, but you sir have been a tireless soldier and a diligent defender of all that is not tard.  

I would buy you a beer if you were any where close to here at all.  37920?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


where dat?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Googling > zipcodes tells you where they are very quickly. Ras is in Knoxville, Tennessee.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


well if I'm ever within 100 miles...
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 11 2007,23:39



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
well if I'm ever within 100 miles...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then you be knowin what to be doin.



Posted by: Dazza McTrazza on Dec. 12 2007,09:14

Not sure if anyone cares but I responded to Joe's latest < post > as follows:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is Joe G an Intellectual Coward? It appears that way.
But appearences can be decieving (sic) so I defer to the evidence so that you can make your own decision:

1- Joe G is always quick to disparage anyone who comes to his site, but when pressed it is obvious he doesn't even understand basic biology. IOW he appears to be too lazy to do any actual research about the subject.

2- When pressed to support his ID position so that we can compare the two, he never does.

3- Instead of staying on-topic in any thread that requests that he support his point-of-view, he hems, haws, beats-around-the-bush, quotes The Privileged Planet, calls people stupid, throws a few online tantrums, but never does as requested.

4- A lot of people have asked, several times now, that the IDists present a testable hypothesis based on their ID position. That is present a testable that demonstrates telic, ie non-stochastic, processes can do what they claim. Yet all we get is more nonsense, o (sic) substance and definitely no hypothesis.

5- When told that there isn't any data, scientific or otherwise, that demonstrates that the physiological and anatomical differences between land mammals and cetaceans, between chimps and humans, can be explained by a designer all we get in return is a vague literature bluff- meaning the answer I get is "It's in the Privileged Planet."

However evolution is not being debated - it's already an established fact making this blog totally redundant other than as a form of christian apologetics. And the data I requested is not in any peer-reviewed journal- yes I have looked. If Joe G thinks I am wrong the easiest way to support that claim is to find ONE peer-reviewed artcle that contains the data I requested.

6- When all else fails we get banned or moderated.

The only reason for such a ban/moderation is that it's easier than having to face reailty.

The bottom line is their position does not make any predictions based on any telic, ie non-stochastic, process. The position can't be objectively tested.

That is why he will not answer our request. To do so would be to expose his position for what it is- faith trying to be passed off as science.

IOW the IDists are nothing but intellectual cowards.

And all the above is why I hope Joe G will be running for his local school board in the next election. Getting this chump in Court and forcing him to answer any question regarding biology will be well worth the resulting hilarity. No one has yet to say anything about Joe G's presentations in area kindergartens, so I doubt anything will change once he becomes milk monitor for a week.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on Dec. 12 2007,09:23

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 11 2007,23:39)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
well if I'm ever within 100 miles...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then you be knowin what to be doin.



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


Cheers, fella. Likewise (or any of you lot) for tropical Chicago.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Dec. 12 2007,09:28

Magic Dazza. Don't forget his veiled threats of violence.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 12 2007,09:34

I like Joe's blog because every other would could be unicorns and it'd make no difference
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2- As there isn't any data, evidence or observations that demonstrate living organisms unicorns can arise from non-living matter unicorns via purely stochastic processes, the anti-ID materialists unicorns take that position on faith and faith alone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on Dec. 12 2007,15:52

< https://www.blogger.com/comment....5980302 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe G said...
BTW I can repair refrigerators. Did you have a point?

I can repair anything that is man-made. Anything. And again- did you have a point?

The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.

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



My gift, for someone without a sig.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Dec. 12 2007,15:54

I replied:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's awesome Joe. Why did you pick the lucrative world of consumer appliances when your mad repair skillz plus denialism tendencies would make you  shoe in for UFO reverse engineering at area 51?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Don't think it will make it through.
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on Dec. 12 2007,16:06



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My gift, for someone without a sig.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Santa rocks. Thankee Santy Claws.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 12 2007,16:52

Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Dec. 12 2007,17:06)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My gift, for someone without a sig.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Santa rocks. Thankee Santy Claws.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------






---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And they call him Sandy Claws!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Steverino on Dec. 13 2007,12:02

I don't know why, but Joe G just strikes me as a loud mouth pussy.
Posted by: blipey on Dec. 13 2007,12:09

Quote (Steverino @ Dec. 13 2007,12:02)
I don't know why, but Joe G just strikes me as a loud mouth pussy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I know why.  His cookies aren't all there, but he still likes to eat.


Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Dec. 13 2007,12:19

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 12 2007,15:52)
< https://www.blogger.com/comment....5980302 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe G said...
BTW I can repair refrigerators. Did you have a point?

I can repair anything that is man-made. Anything. And again- did you have a point?

The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.

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



My gift, for someone without a sig.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Someone should archive Joe's whole blog, in the event that he follows through on his blustering about trying to be elected to his local school board. Unless, of course, he's really so stupid as to leave the blog up for everyone to see.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Dec. 13 2007,13:17

Quote (Steverino @ Dec. 13 2007,12:02)
I don't know why, but Joe G just strikes me as a loud mouth pussy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Classic bully. Will try and intimidate but backs of quickly when you stand up to him.
Posted by: J-Dog on Dec. 13 2007,13:36

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 13 2007,13:17)
Quote (Steverino @ Dec. 13 2007,12:02)
I don't know why, but Joe G just strikes me as a loud mouth pussy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Classic bully. Will try and intimidate but backs of quickly when you stand up to him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What is it about ID and bullies?  If I had to come up with a one-word descriptor of DaveScot is would also be bulley.  

I guess God on your side makes for an easier time doing "Design Science."
Posted by: blipey on Feb. 06 2008,14:04

Wow was this thing buried--probably for good reason.  However, in the interim Joe Gallien has calculated some CSI.  He's even made a prediction using CSI as a basis.

< The 9340 Model of CSI in an ID paradigm >

In case my comment doesn't make it up for a while (it is an ID blog):

I asked him if (CSI > 9340) = DESIGN, if (CSI < 9340) = UNDESIGNED, what the CSI of a mud puddle might be, and how that puddle CSI figure jibes with the 9340 Model.

edit to add info in a direct violation of SLOT.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Feb. 06 2008,15:22

I just pointed out to him that he could take 1868 scrabble tiles with the same letters, toss them into a bag, mix them, then draw them at random.  The resulting gobbledygook  would then have the exact same amount of CSI as the article his method just calculated.   :D  I don't expect my comment to make it past moderation though.

I also wonder where he got the 5 bits per character from.  That only gives you 32 characters, which would exclude capital letters, numerals, and some other useful punctuation (umlauts, etc.)  Standard ASCII uses 7 bits for 128 characters

But hey, it's Joe G, so you get what you get.
:p
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 06 2008,15:30

Well, remember that there are only 10 kinds of people - those who understand binary, and those who don't. :p
Posted by: blipey on Feb. 06 2008,15:31

Oh, it'll probably make it through.  Joe may post slow, but most things get through--and that's when fun ensues.  He'll allow just about anything through, even stuff that makes him look retarded.  Then 6 comments later he apparently completely forgets the content of all comments in the thread.  Good stuff.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 06 2008,16:05

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 06 2008,16:22)
I just pointed out to him that he could take 1868 scrabble tiles with the same letters, toss them into a bag, mix them, then draw them at random.  The resulting gobbledygook  would then have the exact same amount of CSI as the article his method just calculated.   :D  I don't expect my comment to make it past moderation though.

I also wonder where he got the 5 bits per character from.  That only gives you 32 characters, which would exclude capital letters, numerals, and some other useful punctuation (umlauts, etc.)  Standard ASCII uses 7 bits for 128 characters

But hey, it's Joe G, so you get what you get.
:p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Geez.  What if God speaks Chinese though?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 06 2008,16:09

Quote (blipey @ Feb. 06 2008,15:31)
Oh, it'll probably make it through.  Joe may post slow, but most things get through--and that's when fun ensues.  He'll allow just about anything through, even stuff that makes him look retarded.  Then 6 comments later he apparently completely forgets the content of all comments in the thread.  Good stuff.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nah.. he's not let through a couple on the "CSI of a baseball"
Posted by: blipey on Feb. 06 2008,16:15

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 06 2008,16:09)
Quote (blipey @ Feb. 06 2008,15:31)
Oh, it'll probably make it through.  Joe may post slow, but most things get through--and that's when fun ensues.  He'll allow just about anything through, even stuff that makes him look retarded.  Then 6 comments later he apparently completely forgets the content of all comments in the thread.  Good stuff.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nah.. he's not let through a couple on the "CSI of a baseball"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


True enough.  It does make me wonder what i criteria are though.  The sheer volume of stuff that he allows through that make him looked completely stupid is incredible.  So his criteria is not "does this make me look dumb?".  He also doesn't have Ftk false front of "be nice."  What the hell is it?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 07 2008,17:56

blipey you are a saint, the saint of suffering fools.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have frequently been asked why, for example, microbes are found in the lowest strata. My thoughts have always been that they were a necessary ingredient for fertile soil and plant growth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ORLY joe.  who in the feck asked you this, frequently?  because you are an authority?  or because it's funny?
Posted by: Hermagoras on Feb. 07 2008,18:20

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 07 2008,17:56)
blipey you are a saint, the saint of suffering fools.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have frequently been asked why, for example, microbes are found in the lowest strata. My thoughts have always been that they were a necessary ingredient for fertile soil and plant growth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ORLY joe.  who in the feck asked you this, frequently?  because you are an authority?  or because it's funny?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where is that quote from?  Oh my god.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 07 2008,19:01

< Tard >

Check out Rudy Lyle (MR DNA YOU OUT THERE BOY?)  Is that a good example of IDC Science or whut?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 07 2008,19:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
rudy lyle said...
Joe

I am a research scientist and grad student at a fairly respectable engineering school. I have been led to investigate the mathematical reasons for why evolution is not true.

One of my research projects involves the calculation of CSI from various natural features in order to show that nature is designed. I have been forced to undertake this research on my own initiative and time and money as questioning darwinism is not popular, even in my field of science.

I have been surveying what other prominent ID thinkers have to say about my project. In short, my latest ideas have been measuring the number of bits of information along transects through a predetermined volume of soil space. Since the darwinian ecologists have invented explanations for the arrangement of soil micro-organisms along particular resource gradients that they just imagine to be responsible for all sorts of things like population size or reproduction or mutation or take your pick of whatever you can imagine to be stupid. they do it.

anyway, if one were to take a particular volume of soil, say, a big volume 50 centimeters by 50 centimeters by 50 centimeters. Run say 100 random skewers through that soil and draw 50 random locations on each skewer to measure the size and volume of the particle at each location.

You would very quickly surpass the UPB. These measurements would be strongly correlated with certain parameters of the microbial community. I have yet to show this but I think I can make it happen in the lab and verify my hypothesis.

What is important here is that we have shown that whole soil microbial communities are a function of intelligent design. Take away the complexity inserted by intelligence, then you lose your soil microbial community. Since this is the darwinian source of explanation for why species are different or in one place or the other (like productivity or other things that the evolutionists have stolen from engineers). then establishing it to be of intelligent design would be a strong thrust in favor of ID.

I am tired of them getting owned in the blogosphere yet you never hear of this in the scientific literature. My results are publishable in some of the top journal in my field, but of course I have to bow down and kiss the ring of the establishment, or else make it on my own. This is why I am interested in your feedback: if the top ID thinkers and yes even critics are behind me, or at least respecting me, then it is that much stronger a case for the special status of each and every human life we can make.

11:47 PM
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Joe's Response is a disappointment



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

joe g said...
Rudy,

Thank you for posting on Intelligent Reasoning.

You work is very interesting and adds a different twist to the debate.

I have frequently been asked why, for example, microbes are found in the lowest strata. My thoughts have always been that they were a necessary ingredient for fertile soil and plant growth.

8:33 AM
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In the same way that seeing Evel Kneivel eat 100 yards of pavement is a disappointment.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 07 2008,19:46

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 07 2008,18:56)
I have frequently been asked why, for example, microbes are found in the lowest strata. My thoughts have always been that they were a necessary ingredient for fertile soil and plant growth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, I'm sure he's being totally honest about that.

I mean, cuz whenever I have a deep and thoughtful question about biology and geology, the first guy I ask is the Maytag Repairman.

srsly
Posted by: silverspoon on Feb. 07 2008,19:57

All kinds of plants grow under 100’s of feet of sediment. Fertile soil and plant growth are often found there. That’s how plants survived being buried by Da Fluud !

DaveTard made a similar statement about oil being designed millions of years ago for future use.

I don’t suppose Dave and Joe realize they’re dabbling into the designers intentions.  That’s a real No No.
Posted by: Annyday on Feb. 07 2008,20:18

Quote (silverspoon @ Feb. 07 2008,19:57)
All kinds of plants grow under 100’s of feet of sediment. Fertile soil and plant growth are often found there. That’s how plants survived being buried by Da Fluud !

DaveTard made a similar statement about oil being designed millions of years ago for future use.

I don’t suppose Dave and Joe realize they’re dabbling into the designers intentions.  That’s a real No No.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It depends on the audience. It's a no-no in front of church burning ebola boys, but in church it's basically mandatory.
Posted by: blipey on Feb. 07 2008,20:26

Quote (silverspoon @ Feb. 07 2008,19:57)
All kinds of plants grow under 100’s of feet of sediment. Fertile soil and plant growth are often found there. That’s how plants survived being buried by Da Fluud !

DaveTard made a similar statement about oil being designed millions of years ago for future use.

I don’t suppose Dave and Joe realize they’re dabbling into the designers intentions.  That’s a real No No.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cut 'em some slack.  It's hard to remember the rules when you make them up as you go along.
Posted by: blipey on Feb. 07 2008,21:20

< Leading ID Theorist claims that ID has no purpose! >

That's right, folks; Joe Gallien has admitted that ID has no purpose whatsoever!


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
thorton: ID is suppose to be able to determine specificity and therefore design when there in is no pre-existing pattern to compare to.

JoeG: Reference please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 08 2008,06:59

Quote (blipey @ Feb. 07 2008,21:20)
< Leading ID Theorist claims that ID has no purpose! >

That's right, folks; Joe Gallien has admitted that ID has no purpose whatsoever!
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
thorton: ID is suppose to be able to determine specificity and therefore design when there in is no pre-existing pattern to compare to.

JoeG: Reference please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Uh-oh. By pressing this point, Blipey managed to get himself < banned > at Joe's blog.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Read the books I told you to.

Don't come back until you do.

Your ignorance filled posts will no longer be posted.

c-ya
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 08 2008,13:52

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 08 2008,06:59)
Quote (blipey @ Feb. 07 2008,21:20)
< Leading ID Theorist claims that ID has no purpose! >

That's right, folks; Joe Gallien has admitted that ID has no purpose whatsoever!
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
thorton: ID is suppose to be able to determine specificity and therefore design when there in is no pre-existing pattern to compare to.

JoeG: Reference please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Uh-oh. By pressing this point, Blipey managed to get himself < banned > at Joe's blog.    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Read the books I told you to.

Don't come back until you do.

Your ignorance filled posts will no longer be posted.

c-ya
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


There goes half his readership...
Posted by: blipey on Feb. 08 2008,15:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Read the books I told you to.

Don't come back until you do.

Your ignorance filled posts will no longer be posted.

c-ya
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm pretty sure I've read more of them than Joe.  :D
Posted by: blipey on Feb. 12 2008,21:11

Leading ID Theorist, JoeG, speaks again on the usefulness of ID.

< Seriously! >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In order to tell if blipey's string- 100011101001011100010111010101- is designed or not I would need to know where he got it from.

For example, did it just pop into his bitty little head, was it found on the wall of a cave, was it on a piece of paper or what?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In order to tell if my string is designed, Joe would need me to tell him whether or not I designed it.  This ID thing really has something going for it!

So, Joe, um...if I told you I found it on a piece of paper, could you then tell me if it was designed?  What new information (relevant information) would that fact give you?
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 12 2008,21:22

Can't he just analyse it for Complex Specified Information?
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Feb. 12 2008,21:29

Quote (blipey @ Feb. 12 2008,21:11)
Leading ID Theorist, JoeG, speaks again on the usefulness of ID.

< Seriously! >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In order to tell if blipey's string- 100011101001011100010111010101- is designed or not I would need to know where he got it from.

For example, did it just pop into his bitty little head, was it found on the wall of a cave, was it on a piece of paper or what?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In order to tell if my string is designed, Joe would need me to tell him whether or not I designed it.  This ID thing really has something going for it!

So, Joe, um...if I told you I found it on a piece of paper, could you then tell me if it was designed?  What new information (relevant information) would that fact give you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It especially funny given that Joe is now touting Dumbshitski's claim of the affirmative to his question:

Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?

I'm having a ball watching Thornton make Joe dance around like a trained gerbil BTW.  :D
Posted by: blipey on Feb. 14 2008,15:08



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


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Blipey: No, Joe. The writing is NOT a property of the string.

JoeDipshit: I never said nor implied that it was.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Just a few comments previously we had:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Blipey: No, if someone wrote it down, that means that someone wrote it down.

JoeAsshat: Which means it was written by an intelligent agent- ie it was designed.

Blipey: The writing has nothing to do with whether the string itself was designed.

Joe: It does. It was designed by the person who wrote it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Joe, do you fib so much your penis hurts?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





< Read this part of the saga here. > But, the whole damn thread is pretty funny.  Thorton is reaming Joe.
Posted by: Richard Simons on Feb. 14 2008,20:34

I tried to post this on Joe's blog but I'm having difficulty opening a google account:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I must say I am puzzled by this specification stuff. As I understand it, specificity is determined with regards to function. So if I am on a beach and I come across a hard, round, white ball with dimples in it that was designed because it is just right for playing golf. If a few yards along the beach I come across a hard, round object that fits comfortably in my hand and is just right for throwing at the next adulterer I see, does that show that the stone was designed?

In other words, how can an object (organ, organelle or biochemical pathway) that was designed for a specific purpose be reliably distinguished from an object that was not designed but just happens to perform some function quite effectively?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I too am finding the argument that a string of digits is designed because someone wrote it down is vastly entertaining.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 14 2008,21:48

edit: wrong thread.
Posted by: Hermagoras on Feb. 14 2008,22:28

Against my better judgment, I posted a very polite comment on Joe's blog.  We'll see when it appears.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 14 2008,22:32

Quote (Hermagoras @ Feb. 14 2008,22:28)
Against my better judgment, I posted a very polite comment on Joe's blog.  We'll see when it appears.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't let him try and bully you!
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Feb. 15 2008,08:42

Shithead Joe is now deleting parts of my posts as I send them to him (I'm Thornton) and refusing to display others at all.

In particular I asked him about Blipey's sequence 100011101001011100010111010101 , the one Joe says was designed since it was written on a piece of paper.

I asked him suppose he was hiking and the trail went past a cliff composed of light (L) and dark (D) granites.  At the bottom of the cliff is found a series of rocks with the pattern

LDDDLLLDLDDLDLLLDDDLDLLLDLDLDL

I pointed out that those rocks could have ended up there as the result of "nature acting freely" as Joehole likes to put it.

I asked him how to tell if the rocks ended up there naturally or were intelligently placed as a message (i.e. "watch out for falling rocks" in a code he didn't understand)

Joe refused to show the post - I wonder why?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 15 2008,08:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe refused to show the post - I wonder why?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think 'Joehole' answers this quite sufficiently.

roflmao
Posted by: Hermagoras on Feb. 15 2008,11:27

I gave Joe < an opportunity to clarify >:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Okay, let me tell you the story of two friends.

My first friend sleepwalks. But it's a strange form of sleepwalking. Every night, she gets up, goes downstairs to the kitchen table, grabs a sheet of paper and starts writing. Nothing but strings of 1s and 0s. She fills up a single page with these numbers, then leaves it there and goes upstairs and back to sleep. She never remembers doing any of this in the morning.

My second friend is in an institution. (I know, I know.) He had a traumatic brain injury and all his higher functions seem to be gone. He has ceased talking or communicating with anybody at all. Nobody knows how much of a person is left. He eats and shits and sleeps, but that's about all.

Except that he spends all day, every day, filling sheet after sheet of paper with 1s and 0s. Isn't that amazing? Sometimes he'll go on just writing 0s -- hundreds in a row -- sometimes he'll alternate 10101010, and sometimes the sequence will seem random. But still, he's utterly catatonic and shows no signs of intelligence whatsoever.

My question is: is the writing on all of those sheets designed? Is only some? And if so, how do you know which is designed and which not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe < passes >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not interested.

What I am interested in is YOU actually finding and posting the scientific data which supports your position that living organisms arose from non-living matter via non-telic processes.

Heck I would even settle for the scientific data which can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans and then tie that to genetic accidents (ie couple the genetic differences to the physiological and anatomical differences).

We know there are differences in the protein-coding reions, yet those prtein products all function the same- that is they perform the same task. So those genetic differences can't explain the physiological and anatomical differences unless you call upon some magical mystery process, that nature cobbled together, that allows for similar protein function yet very different body plans.

But anyways- for sleep walkers I would put stuff all around their bed, perhaps even some tacks- yeah, that's the ticket- and when they did their sleepwalking thing they would stumble over the obstacles and impale themselves with tacks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sweet guy, that Joe.
Posted by: blipey on Feb. 15 2008,16:48

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 15 2008,08:42)
Shithead Joe is now deleting parts of my posts as I send them to him (I'm Thornton) and refusing to display others at all.

In particular I asked him about Blipey's sequence 100011101001011100010111010101 , the one Joe says was designed since it was written on a piece of paper.

I asked him suppose he was hiking and the trail went past a cliff composed of light (L) and dark (D) granites.  At the bottom of the cliff is found a series of rocks with the pattern

LDDDLLLDLDDLDLLLDDDLDLLLDLDLDL

I pointed out that those rocks could have ended up there as the result of "nature acting freely" as Joehole likes to put it.

I asked him how to tell if the rocks ended up there naturally or were intelligently placed as a message (i.e. "watch out for falling rocks" in a code he didn't understand)

Joe refused to show the post - I wonder why?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I put it to him like that in one of my first responses.  He published it, but never addressed it:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Perhaps I just found something lying around in nature (a set of leaves, green and red let's say). I then wrote the corresponding values on a piece of paper: 1 = green, 0 = red.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: blipey on Feb. 15 2008,16:59

Joe's latest answer is an answer, actually.  It also completely sums up ID.

< Joe's answer to blipey's string. >

Joe has solved the problem through the very powerful technique of MAKING SHIT UP.

I don't understand why this stuff isn't in classrooms everywhere.  Solid effort, Joe.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
blipey wanted to know if a certain binary sequence* was designed. blipey told me that is was written on a piece of paper.

Further investigation found that paper was in a math classroom. After interviewing the teachers for that day I found that the last class of the day was doing conversions- decimal, hex and binary. And on this day the question "What do you get when you covert 598066645 (base 10) into binary?", was asked.

The answer, of course, is:

*100011101001011100010111010101
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


edited to include response so you don't have to actually go to Joe's cesspool.
Posted by: Hermagoras on Feb. 15 2008,18:32

Quote (blipey @ Feb. 15 2008,16:48)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 15 2008,08:42)
Shithead Joe is now deleting parts of my posts as I send them to him (I'm Thornton) and refusing to display others at all.

In particular I asked him about Blipey's sequence 100011101001011100010111010101 , the one Joe says was designed since it was written on a piece of paper.

I asked him suppose he was hiking and the trail went past a cliff composed of light (L) and dark (D) granites.  At the bottom of the cliff is found a series of rocks with the pattern

LDDDLLLDLDDLDLLLDDDLDLLLDLDLDL

I pointed out that those rocks could have ended up there as the result of "nature acting freely" as Joehole likes to put it.

I asked him how to tell if the rocks ended up there naturally or were intelligently placed as a message (i.e. "watch out for falling rocks" in a code he didn't understand)

Joe refused to show the post - I wonder why?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I put it to him like that in one of my first responses.  He published it, but never addressed it:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Perhaps I just found something lying around in nature (a set of leaves, green and red let's say). I then wrote the corresponding values on a piece of paper: 1 = green, 0 = red.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


This was the kind of thing I was hoping to talk about with my hypothetical: a human being who produces 1s and 0s with no apparent intelligent action: automatically.  Joe won't answer, I think, because he knows that the only way to answer is to know something about the source (that is, that the source is conscious/intelligent at the time of writing).   I think this also creates numerous false positives of people who see the writing and assume intelligence which is not there.  

Also, Joe's a fuckwad.  Can he write a single day without reverting to fantasies of  violence?  Imagine his basement.  Or Sal's
Posted by: blipey on Feb. 15 2008,19:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This was the kind of thing I was hoping to talk about with my hypothetical: a human being who produces 1s and 0s with no apparent intelligent action: automatically.  Joe won't answer, I think, because he knows that the only way to answer is to know something about the source (that is, that the source is conscious/intelligent at the time of writing).   I think this also creates numerous false positives of people who see the writing and assume intelligence which is not there.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't agree with the bolded part (why the hell isn't "bolded" in the spell checker?).

A lot of his argument on that thread is him claiming to have to know something about the source--knowing how I produced the string and in what manner, etc.  I think the reason he won't publish your comment is 99.99% him being a fuckwad.

Joe can't go 2 minutes without contradicting himself.  He obviously has the logical skills of a 6 year old.  Joe is the type of person who can't see 8 minutes into the future and assumes no one else can remember 15 minutes into the past.

Of course, this describes the majority of creationists.  It's a sad sort of existence: not bright and/or curious enough to do science while simultaneously not being artistic and/or intuitive enough to be imaginative.

edited to say that I don't believe that scientists aren't imaginative--even if it read that way...
Posted by: Hermagoras on Feb. 15 2008,20:12

Oh, he'll publish my comment.  He just won't answer the question.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Feb. 15 2008,22:55

That puts you one up on me.  Joehole hasn't let my last four posts see the light of day.   Guess he knows when he's really getting his ass kicked and takes the coward's way out...AGAIN.  :p
Posted by: blipey on Feb. 17 2008,09:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
cjyman,

Joe did ZERO investigation.  He made that story up out of whole cloth because he can't answer the question.  There was no investigation happening at all.

And, pardon me if I got this wrong, but are you agreeing that the writing  of the string itself can alter the information of the string?  If so, I'm going to have to lump you into the same pie as Joe--the crazy pie.

The question that Joe (and perhaps yourself) is talking around is very simple:

1A.  I could have been walking down the road recording the color of leaves that I passed on the road (green=1, red=0).

1B.  I could have been recording the length of scratch marks on the side of the road (long=1, short=0).

1C.  I could have found and/or produced the digits in innumerable other ways.

2.  The writing of the string in  most of those ways has NOTHING to do with the content of said string--the leaves would still be laying the way they did if I had written it down or not.  The scratch marks would still be there had I written it down or not.  Etc.

3.  Can you tell if the string itself was designed?

THAT'S IT.

Context is stupid WRT ID.  The ID claim is to be able to detect design without knowing anything about the designer.  If context is provided, you will necessarily know something about the designer.  So which is true:

1.  ID needs to know something about the designer to figure out if  a thing is designed.

(In this case, ID is useless, because you are pre-supposing a designer and then...TA-DA, finding one.)

2.  You can tell me if my string was designed by looking at it.

(In this case, ID would be spectacularly useful.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: blipey on Feb. 18 2008,17:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Give me two reasons why the pattern “1111111111" can have a different probability than the pattern “1111111111.”

1.  Different sample sets are involved: the elements of the first pattern could be have possible values of {0,1,2,3} while the elements of the second pattern have only {0,1} as possible values.

2.  The patterns could be the results of different iterated processes, making each successive element have a different probability.

He made up the story because when you originally posed the question, you wouldn’t give him any context. So, he created a scenario where, given investigation into that scenario it was determined that the string was designed.

The scenario that Joe proposes assumes design from the beginning.  He took as his starting point "Design" (the class must design something).  Then, in a miracle of science, came to the conclusion of "Design".  As I pointed out above, shouldn't one take as their starting position a NEUTRAL ONE?

There was no investigation as the process had only one step:

Premise: Teacher says, "Design something."

Step 1.  It's designed.

The writing itself (the ink marks) can have a different probability than the information content represented by the string itself.

Sure, but no one ares about that.  Everyone knows that paper is designed and everyone knows that language is designed.  We want to know about the information contained in the string.  I gave several examples of possible context (which Joe seems to have ignored): leaves along a road, scratch marks on a wall, the possibility that I designed the string and wrote it down, the height of mountain peeks taken from south to north...etc.

It is a given that the act of writing takes intelligence.  What is not a given is that the world was designed.  What is not a given is that my string was designed.  By looking at the string, can ID tell me if it was designed or not?

I'm not asking you to do no investigation, but I AM asking you to show some work (well, Joe anyway).  I think your answer to the question was acceptable.  You came to a conclusion based on work that you did.  Joe avoided doing any work at all.

The information content of the string itself isn’t altered, but if the context surrounding the string is highly improbable and specified then we can come to the conclusion that the string, although itself is random, was written down by an intelligent agent without ever seeing the intelligent agent.

The bolded part is the crux of the matter.  As I said before, it is a given that intelligence is required to write something down.  We are interested in the pattern itself.  It could have been produced by rain--a gash in the mud, followed by three roundish holes, followed by three gashes, a hole, a gash...

When we come by 4 hours later and see this pattern, who can we know it was created by the rain?  Or how can we know it was designed?  You said, "even though the pattern itself was random".  How can you determine that?  Isn't that what ID is about, determining what is designed and what is random?

Are you getting any of this yet?


Yes.  I don't think I can be more clear as to why none of it matters?  We want to know if the pattern is designed or not.  Who the hell cares about the writing of it (in so far as the writing doesn't include errors).  Is the fall of leaves designed?  Are the holes in the ground designed?  Who cares about the writing?  This is a trivial thing that Joe (and yourself to some extent) keeps harping on.

Blipey:
“The question that Joe (and perhaps yourself) is talking around is very simple:”

Talking around?!?!?!?!?! Ummm ... no. Attempting to explain with reference to context, with someone not understanding what context is? Ummmm ... yes!!


I understand what context is.  If you know that something is designed (which is exactly what Joe's example consists of), it doesn't take much to figure out that the thing was designed.

I've given you any number of contextual possibilities for this string.  They seem to have all been ignored in favor of making up a trivial case.  How about working out if the marks in the ground were designed?  Or the leaves on the ground?

Was the string written in ink on a piece of paper? Do you want to know if the information content represented by the string is designed or do you want to know if the string itself as written on the paper is designed?

First sentence.  Who cares, see above.

The second sentence.  More about the information, but in a specific case using a context provide previously:  I would like to know if the holes in the ground were designed.  I suppose this is just about the same thing as telling me if the information content of the string is designed.

There is your answer (which I already gave above, but you conveniently ignored, so I wonder if you're gonna ignore this one too).

You must not be reading this thread to carefully.  I gave you credit (three times now, actually) for answering the question.  Please go back upthread and read my very specific comment crediting you with saying "The String is not Designed" and Joe with saying "The String is Designed".  It's right up there.

All ID needs to know is that intelligence produces certain patterns (CSI) that chance and law do not produce. Then, we merely look for those patterns. But, you should know this by now.

I keep hearing it.  Tell me if the holes in the mud are designed or not.

You will notice that your ability to comprehend what I have written here depends entirely on your ability to answer the first question I posed at the top of this comment.

You highly over-estimate the profundity of your comments.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Perhaps appearing after this comment. >

edited to clean up html
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 18 2008,22:14

wow, joe is a tard.  in other news, i just pissed and every single piss molecule hit the ground.  except for those that didn't, and they show every sign of doing it shortly!
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 19 2008,11:16

Even the water molecules that happen to evaporate on the way down? :p
Posted by: uriel on Feb. 21 2008,03:25

Weird.

I asked Joe, in a fit of honest curiosity, how this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Natural selection does not apply to non-living molecules- as Dobzhanky stated "pre-biotic natural selection is a contradiction in terms". AND mutations do not occur to non-replicating molecules.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



applied to infectious prions, since, while they seemed evince both mutation (by definition) and natural selection, compared to their non-infectious, normally non-replicating alternatives. My simple query being, "do you consider prions living molecules?"

Strangely, my question failed to clear moderation. Funny that.


Posted by: uriel on Feb. 21 2008,03:31

So, obviously, my post had some screwed up formatting there- I'd edit it, but apparently, I inhabit the same non-editable hell FTK does.  I probably deserve that.

Guess I should have used that preview thingie. Sorry 'bout that.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Feb. 21 2008,08:39

Joehole continues the rant

IF such data exists, that is the data that supports the theory of evolution, why wasn't it presented during the Dover trial?

Joe, which side won the Dover trial?   :D  :D  :D
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Feb. 21 2008,09:18

Wow blipey, Joe seems to have a serious man-crush on you.  Did you lead him on at a party once?  :O
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 21 2008,09:21

Quote (uriel @ Feb. 21 2008,04:31)
So, obviously, my post had some screwed up formatting there- I'd edit it, but apparently, I inhabit the same non-editable hell FTK does.  I probably deserve that.

Guess I should have used that preview thingie. Sorry 'bout that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fixed.  Mention that in the < Board Mechanics thread >.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 21 2008,09:26

New one, don't know if it will go through:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe, WRT your comment:

" Richie Retardo chimes in with:
Thorton: Joe says , and forgive my paraphrasing, that he can "understand anything that man does"

I didn't say that. However, each time I have taken an IQ test EVERY IQ test evaluator has said that to me- that I can understand anything that mankind does. "

Joe, here's your comment, archived for all to see:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....ry88231 >

"Joe G said...
BTW I can repair refrigerators. Did you have a point?

I can repair anything that is man-made. Anything. And again- did you have a point?

The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand."

I said I was paraphrasing. Could you highlight the material difference between

"understand anything that man does"

and "...anything that any man does I can understand." or are you a liar, Joe?

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


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 21 2008,11:08

Oh, he can, but will he?
Posted by: blipey on Feb. 21 2008,12:44

hughes, hughes, hughes...are you trying to show Joe evidence?

You must be a homo or something.
Posted by: blipey on Feb. 21 2008,12:45

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 21 2008,09:18)
Wow blipey, Joe seems to have a serious man-crush on you.  Did you lead him on at a party once?  :O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Once upon a time, Joe lost his penis.  He looks for replacements.

The end.
Posted by: blipey on Feb. 21 2008,12:55

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 21 2008,09:26)
New one, don't know if it will go through:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe, WRT your comment:

" Richie Retardo chimes in with:
Thorton: Joe says , and forgive my paraphrasing, that he can "understand anything that man does"

I didn't say that. However, each time I have taken an IQ test EVERY IQ test evaluator has said that to me- that I can understand anything that mankind does. "

Joe, here's your comment, archived for all to see:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....ry88231 >

"Joe G said...
BTW I can repair refrigerators. Did you have a point?

I can repair anything that is man-made. Anything. And again- did you have a point?

The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand."

I said I was paraphrasing. Could you highlight the material difference between

"understand anything that man does"

and "...anything that any man does I can understand." or are you a liar, Joe?

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


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


< Holy shit! >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My apologies to Rich Hughes-


I will delete my ignorance-driven comment
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Of course, he's expunged the record of him saying anything contradictory.  It's almost as if he's embarrassed, but I know that's not the case.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Mar. 01 2008,14:26

LOL!  I've been having a great time harassing Joehole at his blog over his cowardice in refusing to discuss his nonsense on an unmoderated board.  I extended an invitation for him to join the RantsnRaves Evolution site, where many professional scientist could vet his ID work.

His response?  Joe claims he was denied membership there :D  :D  :D

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joehole:  If that site (RantsnRaves)was worth anything they would be freely discussing ALL the data that supports their case as opposed to ranting and raving like little lost children.

And if I am a coward becaue YOU can't understand ID nor support your position, what does that make you?

Also they denied my registration. It appears they didn't like my answers to their queries.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What queries were those Joe? All RnR requires is for you to confirm you are over 18, a made-up user name and password, and a valid email address so they can send you the account activation.

What part of that were you too stupid to get right?
Posted by: blipey on Mar. 01 2008,17:59

Joe's super-secret government job that requires ultra-top-secret clearance still only has dial-up service so they won't let him roam the inter-webbies at work.  Damn feds!

It's either that or a Maytag fell on Joe's PC.
Posted by: Zachriel on Mar. 04 2008,12:06

Joe G just called Professor Allen a < crack-whore >.
Posted by: Zachriel on Mar. 05 2008,07:24

Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 04 2008,12:06)
Joe G just called Professor Allen a < crack-whore >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Joe G >: I did not call Prof Allen a crack-whore.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heh.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Mar. 05 2008,07:58

Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 05 2008,08:24)
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 04 2008,12:06)
Joe G just called Professor Allen a < crack-whore >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Joe G >: I did not call Prof Allen a crack-whore.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heh.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


heh indeed.

Yes you did, Joe.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 05 2008,09:40

God what a tard.  I bet he has high blood pressure.  Good job guys, way to take some tard for the team.



Posted by: blipey on Mar. 09 2008,16:53

Blipey: In your link, an army IS a nested hierarchy because IT CONSISTS OF SOLDIERS AND IS MADE UP OF THEM.

JoeG: As I have been telling you- THAT IS INCORRECT. There isn't anything in any link that comes close to saying that.  Only a moron could make such a connection.

From < this link of Joe's: >

Professor Allen:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For example, an army consists of a collection of soldiers and is made up of them. Thus an army is a nested hierarchy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We can all go there and read it, Joe. For God's sake.

< Appearing here. >
Posted by: carlsonjok on Mar. 12 2008,07:32

< Another piece > in the Joe G puzzle. In response to a question from Allen MacNeill:

 

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, while we’re at it, what field and laboratory research have you done to collect empirical evidence for an alternate theory, and where has it been published?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have been too busy working on national security issues- detecting biological & chemical agents- and recovering from injuries I sustained in Iraq- three surgeries down and hopefully only one more to go.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Zachriel on Mar. 12 2008,07:37

Joe posted a military < Operational Unit Diagram >. So I just posted this graphic for Joe.



I wonder what kind of names he'll call me now...
Posted by: blipey on Mar. 12 2008,08:35

There you go with evidence again, Zachriel!  Shame on you.  We should start some sort of pool on which response Joe will pull out of his ass in order to deal with basic logic problems.

BEEN THERE, DONE THAT                      REPOST A FALSIFIED LINK

CLOSE COMMENTS                                SPEW CUSS WORDS

MENTION HIS SECURITY CLEARANCE      COMBO OF TWO

TRIPLE DELIGHT                                   KUNG PAO BEEF
Posted by: slpage on Mar. 12 2008,08:45

Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 12 2008,07:32)
< Another piece > in the Joe G puzzle. In response to a question from Allen MacNeill:

 

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, while we’re at it, what field and laboratory research have you done to collect empirical evidence for an alternate theory, and where has it been published?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have been too busy working on national security issues- detecting biological & chemical agents- and recovering from injuries I sustained in Iraq- three surgeries down and hopefully only one more to go.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Looks like he is a bit delusional.

He's an electronics engineer - a technician - for crying out loud...
Posted by: Zachriel on Mar. 12 2008,09:11

Quote (slpage @ Mar. 12 2008,08:45)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 12 2008,07:32)
< Another piece > in the Joe G puzzle. In response to a question from Allen MacNeill:



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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, while we’re at it, what field and laboratory research have you done to collect empirical evidence for an alternate theory, and where has it been published?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have been too busy working on national security issues- detecting biological & chemical agents- and recovering from injuries I sustained in Iraq- three surgeries down and hopefully only one more to go.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Looks like he is a bit delusional.

He's an electronics engineer - a technician - for crying out loud...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds like he may have been a civilian contractor. Maybe he hurt his back lifting a refrigerator.
Posted by: Zachriel on Mar. 12 2008,15:26

Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 12 2008,07:37)
Joe posted a military < Operational Unit Diagram >. So I just posted this graphic for Joe.



I wonder what kind of names he'll call me now...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I got grouped with "you chumps" and "obviously too stupid and lazy". But I did evoke a personal "imbecile", so the effort wasn't completely wasted.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 12 2008,15:35

Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 12 2008,09:11)
Quote (slpage @ Mar. 12 2008,08:45)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 12 2008,07:32)
< Another piece > in the Joe G puzzle. In response to a question from Allen MacNeill:

 

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, while we’re at it, what field and laboratory research have you done to collect empirical evidence for an alternate theory, and where has it been published?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have been too busy working on national security issues- detecting biological & chemical agents- and recovering from injuries I sustained in Iraq- three surgeries down and hopefully only one more to go.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Looks like he is a bit delusional.

He's an electronics engineer - a technician - for crying out loud...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds like he may have been a civilian contractor. Maybe he hurt his back lifting a refrigerator.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This must relate to the time he claimed to be a Muslim in order to prove that not all IDers are Christians. Maybe he converted while fixing fridges in the Green Zone?
Posted by: slpage on Mar. 12 2008,18:44

Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 12 2008,09:11)
Quote (slpage @ Mar. 12 2008,08:45)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 12 2008,07:32)
< Another piece > in the Joe G puzzle. In response to a question from Allen MacNeill:

 

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, while we’re at it, what field and laboratory research have you done to collect empirical evidence for an alternate theory, and where has it been published?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have been too busy working on national security issues- detecting biological & chemical agents- and recovering from injuries I sustained in Iraq- three surgeries down and hopefully only one more to go.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Looks like he is a bit delusional.

He's an electronics engineer - a technician - for crying out loud...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds like he may have been a civilian contractor. Maybe he hurt his back lifting a refrigerator.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or digging a latrine...


Unfortunately, ol' Joey complained about having back surgery YEARS ago - well before the 'war on terror'.

I think he is just milking it, trying to make himself out to be a tough guy getting hurt in Iraq.... digging latrines...  I think his original back problem stemmed from trying to engage in autofellatio and realising that he couldn't quite reach.
Posted by: khan on Mar. 12 2008,19:18

Quote (slpage @ Mar. 12 2008,19:44)
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 12 2008,09:11)
 
Quote (slpage @ Mar. 12 2008,08:45)
   
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 12 2008,07:32)
< Another piece > in the Joe G puzzle. In response to a question from Allen MacNeill:

   

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, while we’re at it, what field and laboratory research have you done to collect empirical evidence for an alternate theory, and where has it been published?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have been too busy working on national security issues- detecting biological & chemical agents- and recovering from injuries I sustained in Iraq- three surgeries down and hopefully only one more to go.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Looks like he is a bit delusional.

He's an electronics engineer - a technician - for crying out loud...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds like he may have been a civilian contractor. Maybe he hurt his back lifting a refrigerator.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or digging a latrine...


Unfortunately, ol' Joey complained about having back surgery YEARS ago - well before the 'war on terror'.

I think he is just milking it, trying to make himself out to be a tough guy getting hurt in Iraq.... digging latrines...  I think his original back problem stemmed from trying to engage in autofellatio and realising that he couldn't quite reach.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There once was a man from Nantucket...
Posted by: Zachriel on Mar. 25 2008,09:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Joseph >: Compared to what anti-ID sites say about IDists I would rather be associated with the people here {at Uncommon Descent}.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The only question is which thread to post this on. Uncommon Descent or the Joe G thread?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Joe G >: IOW you are a liar ...

< Joe G >: IOW you are a stupid fucker

< Joe G >: You are what you eat. Which would make you a little boys penis.

< Joe G >: obviously too stupid and too lazy

< Joe G >: you are an imbecile

< Joe G >: dishonest imbecilic ploy
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All from a single thread! And still my favorite:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Zachriel >: Does a paternal family tree or even a typical spreading chestnut tree constitute a nested hierarchy (assuming suitable set categorizations)?

Professor Allen: It depends on the level of analsysis, so the answer is yes and no.

< Joe G >: It depends on if the person making the claim is a complete loser- like you... But thanks for demonstrating that you have all the credibility of a crack-whore.

< blipey > {to Joe G}: How's that calling Professor Allen a crack-whore thing going?

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


Posted by: Richardthughes on May 28 2008,10:11

I stumbled across this oldie but goodie

(via Nuytsia via Gunthernacus via..)

< http://www.arn.org/ubbthre....=0&vc=1 >




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Many dealing with ion trap mobilty spectrometry & mass spectrometry. Many more dealing with electronic circuitry and electricity.

I can't get specific as it deals with security. If you can get a security clearance I could show you what I do.

Then there is astronomy. On any given night I can have 3 telescopes pointing skyward. 2 4,5" aps with a 910mm FL(one automated and one manual) as well as a 10" ap with an 1125mm FL.

And that is just the tip of the ole iceberg.

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



And they Picked Gil Dodgems over this guy!
Posted by: J-Dog on May 28 2008,11:21

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 28 2008,10:11)
I stumbled across this oldie but goodie

(via Nuytsia via Gunthernacus via..)

< http://www.arn.org/ubbthre....=0&vc=1 >


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Many dealing with ion trap mobilty spectrometry & mass spectrometry. Many more dealing with electronic circuitry and electricity.

I can't get specific as it deals with security. If you can get a security clearance I could show you what I do.

Then there is astronomy. On any given night I can have 3 telescopes pointing skyward. 2 4,5" aps with a 910mm FL(one automated and one manual) as well as a 10" ap with an 1125mm FL.

And that is just the tip of the ole iceberg.

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



And they Picked Gil Dodgems over this guy!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nothing like an Instant Replay to take an extra look.

And it struck me as I read Joe G's braggadocio, that it closely resembles a DaveScot screed in all it's chest-pounding glory.

There has to be a PhD out there just waiting to be had for someone to scientifically examine the psychological beliefs and behaviors of your "Typical ID Bully Believer ".

If they could stand the close approximation of IDists and their bragging (about getting it wrong) for the length of the study.
Posted by: blipey on May 28 2008,16:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There has to be a PhD out there just waiting to be had for someone to scientifically examine the psychological beliefs and behaviors of your "Typical ID  Bully  Believer ".

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



Who offers a PhD in watermelon rind observation?
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 28 2008,16:54

Ticks do!
Posted by: KCdgw on Feb. 03 2009,09:22

Joe has < reinfected > ARN again. What an ignorant ass.

KC
Posted by: KCdgw on Feb. 03 2009,09:23

Quote (KCdgw @ Feb. 03 2009,09:22)
Joe has < reinfected > ARN again. What an ignorant ass.

KC
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just realized how "Dog Bites Man" that was. Sorry. Carry on.

KC
Posted by: KCdgw on Feb. 03 2009,10:59

Another Joe G gem for those without sigs:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I know all about the ToE. If I lack any knowledge of the ToE it is because evos have not put in in a book or peer-reviewed paper
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



KC
Posted by: Marion Delgado on Feb. 06 2009,22:34

I used to wonder what it would be like if FTK and DaveScott had a baby. And I want to thank Joe G for answering my question.
Posted by: Badger3k on Feb. 06 2009,23:55

Just saw this thread on my RSS feed, and wow.  I gotta go back and read - this guy sounds like a winner.  Before I do, a question: has he yelled "Wolverines!" yet, or said that Red Dawn is the kick-assingest movie evar!!!!! ?
Posted by: Marion Delgado on Feb. 11 2009,10:54

On the one hand, I admire what Joe G is doing to save God from atheist assaults, by tying so many of you secularists and materialists up with endless repetitive back and forth over dictionary definitions - a tactic I greatly admire and use whenever possible, and one which you evolutionists (which my dictionary defines as baby-raping Islamonarcommunist cannibal fascist mind control cultists. We can argue it if you like, but you'll lose) clearly never evolved the gene to cope with.

On the other hand, as a sensible moderate of the ID cause, I have to admit I wouldn't consult Joe G on an illness contracted along the male line he apparently doesn't believe exists scientifically. We all have our specialties - I would preferentially choose Joe G for Christian-oriented electrical engineering. Even Genesis says God gave specific curses to the male and female lines. We give men unemployment checks and women anesthesia during childbirth AT OUR PERIL. But that's another discussion.
Posted by: KCdgw on Feb. 11 2009,12:09

[quote=Marion Delgado,Feb. 06 2009,22:34]

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I used to wonder what it would be like if FTK and DaveScott had a baby.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Surely there are more wholesome things to wonder about.

KC
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 27 2010,17:14

How many threads does JoeG the refrigerator repairman need, anyway?

Locking this one up due to < the new one >. Let's be looking for old threads before we start new ones.

kthanxbai.
end


Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a
Ikonboard © 2001 Jarvis Entertainment Group, Inc.