RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (14) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... >   
  Topic: The Joe G Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Joe G



Posts: 2040
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,20:43   

Design is an ALTERNATIVE!

Not every alternative is an opposite.

Go soak your head...

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,20:47   

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:42)
Even if the designer was supernatural, so what?

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?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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...

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?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,20:50   

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:43)
Go soak your head...

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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1788
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: 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

AHA !!!  I KNEW IT !!!!!

So the designer IS a space alien, huh Joe . . . . . ?


(snicker)  (giggle)

BWA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: 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. . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2715
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

You cannot have any part of one set that can also belong to an otherwise unrelated set.

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.

--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,22:08   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 24 2007,20:57)
So the designer IS a space alien, huh Joe . . . . . ?

Of course he is.  They even have pictures of his space ship.


--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4907
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
snoeman



Posts: 109
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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?

Nope.

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

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.

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.

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.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,03:14   

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:42)
Ooops- almost forgot-

Even if the designer was supernatural, so what?

If he is, ID is not a scientific theory.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: 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?

Nope.

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

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.

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

Who designed them?

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?

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?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
deejay



Posts: 113
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

Joe-

What specific role do you envision for yourself here?

  
franky172



Posts: 160
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,08:57   

Quote
I just demonstrated that you don't have an argument.

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.

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.

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.

Yes, it is a trivial matter.

  
Darth Robo



Posts: 148
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,09:21   

"how we can tell if something is designed"

COMPLEXITY AND ORDER IS EVIDENCE OF DESIGN!  DAMMIT!

:angry:

--------------
"Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."

  
Rob



Posts: 154
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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?

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.

--------------
-- Rob, the fartist formerly known as 2ndclass

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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).

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Rob



Posts: 154
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: 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'.

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).

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.
(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.

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.

--------------
-- Rob, the fartist formerly known as 2ndclass

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4907
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: 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?

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: 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?

Perhaps the Thomas More Law Center, again.

Fundies *are* awfully stupid, ya know.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
stevestory



Posts: 10402
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: 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'.

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 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.)

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: 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...

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?

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1199
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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...

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?

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.


Joe thinks advocacy videos are "evidence."

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

  
  409 replies since June 27 2007,11:33 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (14) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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