RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (14) < ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... >   
  Topic: The Joe G Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1199
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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


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.

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

  
Rob



Posts: 154
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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...


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.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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...


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.

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.

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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.

Apparently he was hoping that none of the rest of us actually had functional eyeballs...

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

LOL!
Touche

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2007,16:26   

Quote
shit that probably even embarrasses FTK.


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.


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

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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...

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2007,13:16   

This hit the nail on the head:

Quote
[Joe] also thinks that sentences are evidence.


This is a common malaise of autodidacts, but I don't think Joe even rises to that level.

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

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


Ahhhh, but Jesus IS the answer to 'Why is the sky blue?'  I mean shit what else could be the answer?  pfffff.

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

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: 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

Actually, it is in Electronics Engineering.

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: 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...

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.

And you are still a freak.

Oh well.

Brilliant retort, ID's Bulldog!

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: 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

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.

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: 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...


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.

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.

Can we say "cross examination"?

:p

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2715
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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

   
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 09 2007,11:32   

...and neither did Joe G.

:p

--------------
- 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!

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2715
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 09 2007,11:43   

Just for fun, threads on Joe's blog that have Zachriel in the title.

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

   
stevestory



Posts: 10403
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 09 2007,11:45   

LOL

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 09 2007,13:09   

I'll work security for you, Zachriel.  I hear that clowns are good at keeping the clowns at bay.

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

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2715
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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.

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.

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

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2715
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

Except that now the text makes false claims. Joe is ascribing views to scientists that they did not in fact hold!

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!

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

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2007,07:07   

Quote
In fact, it turns the truth into a lie. Good work, Joe!


Awwwwwwwwhhhh.

Can we call Joe. G. Mr. 31% Joe.

Thhhwwwwpppp!

Weak as piss, Joe.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Cedric Katesby



Posts: 55
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2007,08:56   

"Tell us about the alien cities on the Moon and Mars'

Oh please. Yes please. :D  :D  :D

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

Except that now the text makes false claims. Joe is ascribing views to scientists that they did not in fact hold!

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!

Adding "doesn't" to sentences is also good. Erm, bad.

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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



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

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

Pages: (14) < ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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