Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::Joe G.'s Tardgasm

Posts: 491
Joined: June 2008

Posted: Jan. 03 2018,20:11

As to another of your primary claims, that of "ice is not water", perhaps you could get up to speed with a grade school physics lesson at the following link:

Quote

Solids, Liquids and Gases: Ice, Water and Steam
Water exists in three states – solid ice, liquid water and gaseous steam.

Again, as the ridiculousness of your initial claim became apparent, you added the "context" of solid versus liquid.

Which doesn't change the fact that both the liquid (water in your "context") and the solid (ice in your "context") are composed of...water.

You're wrong and once again too much of a coward to admit it.

--------------
"I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK

"You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that." - Field Man on how to find value in Gary Gaulin's real-science "theory"

Joe G

Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 03 2018,21:24

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Jan. 03 2018,20:11)

As to another of your primary claims, that of "ice is not water", perhaps you could get up to speed with a grade school physics lesson at the following link:

Quote

Solids, Liquids and Gases: Ice, Water and Steam
Water exists in three states – solid ice, liquid water and gaseous steam.

Again, as the ridiculousness of your initial claim became apparent, you added the "context" of solid versus liquid.

Which doesn't change the fact that both the liquid (water in your "context") and the solid (ice in your "context") are composed of...water.

You're wrong and once again too much of a coward to admit it.

No, dickhead, I said that hail is made up of ice, not water. and my claim is supported by meteorologists, no less.

Ice is a solid and water is a liquid. And yes physics says there is a difference between solids and liquids.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code- Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G

Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 03 2018,21:28

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Jan. 03 2018,20:11)

As to another of your primary claims, that of "ice is not water", perhaps you could get up to speed with a grade school physics lesson at the following link:

Quote

Solids, Liquids and Gases: Ice, Water and Steam
Water exists in three states – solid ice, liquid water and gaseous steam.

Again, as the ridiculousness of your initial claim became apparent, you added the "context" of solid versus liquid.

Which doesn't change the fact that both the liquid (water in your "context") and the solid (ice in your "context") are composed of...water.

You're wrong and once again too much of a coward to admit it.

Context is always important, dipshit. And, to top it off, in the thread on my blog that started this huge evoTARDgasm I said that I used a poor choice of words in order to try to make my point. But no, you jerkoffs had to throw your usual ignorant stunts, ignore the context, ignore all attempts at an explanation and ignore the fact that what you have been seeking was already provided.

But it's OK as you have been entertaining.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code- Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

k.e..

Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 03 2018,23:25

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 04 2018,04:03)

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Jan. 03 2018,19:45)

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,19:35)

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Jan. 03 2018,17:37)

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 03 2018,17:02)

Poor chubby Joke. He's so ronery when no one pays him attention.

So ronery.

I gues that even ridicule here is better that the complete ignoring that ET receives by his compatriots over at UD.

And yet ET is getting accolades in the science and biology threads. Another blowTARD FAIL for Acartia

They have biology and science threads at UD? Where have they been hiding? Maybe you can link to one of those accolades that you have received. Chirp. Chirp. Chirp.

~~Yes they~~ No they don't have biology and science threads at UD. but ~~you~~ I, being an ignorant, lowlife loser who cannot read for comprehension, wouldn't know anything about either of those topics.

Corrected for you Mr. I'm not a scientist Special Pleading Joetard.

Just show the links Mr. I'm not a scientist Special Pleading Joetard.

Can't? that makes you S-P-E-C-I-A-L.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his ~~clown~~ DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

k.e..

Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 03 2018,23:37

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 04 2018,05:28)

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Jan. 03 2018,20:11)

As to another of your primary claims, that of "ice is not water", perhaps you could get up to speed with a grade school physics lesson at the following link:

Quote

Solids, Liquids and Gases: Ice, Water and Steam
Water exists in three states – solid ice, liquid water and gaseous steam.

Again, as the ridiculousness of your initial claim became apparent, you added the "context" of solid versus liquid.

Which doesn't change the fact that both the liquid (water in your "context") and the solid (ice in your "context") are composed of...water.

You're wrong and once again too much of a coward to admit it.

Context is always important, dipshit. And, to top it off, in the thread on my blog that started this huge evoTARDgasm I said that I used a poor choice of words in order to try to make my point. But no, you jerkoffs had to throw your usual ignorant stunts, ignore the context, ignore all attempts at an explanation and ignore the fact that what you have been seeking was already provided.

But it's OK as you have been entertaining.

No Joe there has never been a "context" where frequency and wavelength are interchangeable.

What you don't know and can only get a faint grasp of is that when an Amateur radio guy wants to cut an antenna to it's resonant frequency he must CONVERT frequency to wavelength by using the the general wave formula velocity=lamda/period to determine the length of the antenna.

What is Lamda?

If they were interchangeable (gaffaw) there would be no need for CONVERSION based on the speed of light in this case.

What you propose breaks Einstein's Theory of Relativity which relies on the speed of light being constant (in any given medium).

But then you can't know that can you?

Why?

Answer: JOE IS A TARD.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his ~~clown~~ DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

Joe G

Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 04 2018,09:15

Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,23:25)

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 04 2018,04:03)

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Jan. 03 2018,19:45)

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,19:35)

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Jan. 03 2018,17:37)

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 03 2018,17:02)

Poor chubby Joke. He's so ronery when no one pays him attention.

So ronery.

I gues that even ridicule here is better that the complete ignoring that ET receives by his compatriots over at UD.

And yet ET is getting accolades in the science and biology threads. Another blowTARD FAIL for Acartia

They have biology and science threads at UD? Where have they been hiding? Maybe you can link to one of those accolades that you have received. Chirp. Chirp. Chirp.

~~Yes they~~ No they don't have biology and science threads at UD. but ~~you~~ I, being an ignorant, lowlife loser who cannot read for comprehension, wouldn't know anything about either of those topics.

Corrected for you Mr. I'm not a scientist Special Pleading Joetard.

Just show the links Mr. I'm not a scientist Special Pleading Joetard.

Can't? that makes you S-P-E-C-I-A-L.

LoL! Davey Whiskers is also ignorant of biology and science. Even Davey's mentor, Arthur Hunt, was at UD discussing the spliceosome, which is a biological structure that evolutionism cannot account for

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code- Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G

Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 04 2018,09:16

Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,23:37)

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 04 2018,05:28)

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Jan. 03 2018,20:11)

As to another of your primary claims, that of "ice is not water", perhaps you could get up to speed with a grade school physics lesson at the following link:

Quote

Solids, Liquids and Gases: Ice, Water and Steam
Water exists in three states – solid ice, liquid water and gaseous steam.

Again, as the ridiculousness of your initial claim became apparent, you added the "context" of solid versus liquid.

Which doesn't change the fact that both the liquid (water in your "context") and the solid (ice in your "context") are composed of...water.

You're wrong and once again too much of a coward to admit it.

Context is always important, dipshit. And, to top it off, in the thread on my blog that started this huge evoTARDgasm I said that I used a poor choice of words in order to try to make my point. But no, you jerkoffs had to throw your usual ignorant stunts, ignore the context, ignore all attempts at an explanation and ignore the fact that what you have been seeking was already provided.

But it's OK as you have been entertaining.

No Joe there has never been a "context" where frequency and wavelength are interchangeable.

What you don't know and can only get a faint grasp of is that when an Amateur radio guy wants to cut an antenna to it's resonant frequency he must CONVERT frequency to wavelength by using the the general wave formula velocity=lamda/period to determine the length of the antenna.

What is Lamda?

If they were interchangeable (gaffaw) there would be no need for CONVERSION based on the speed of light in this case.

What you propose breaks Einstein's Theory of Relativity which relies on the speed of light being constant (in any given medium).

But then you can't know that can you?

Why?

Answer: JOE IS A TARD.

I provided a context in which frequency and wavelength are interchangeable, Davey. That you are too ignorant to understand it is your problem, not mine.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code- Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G

Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 04 2018,09:21

keiths continues to puke all over himself when it comes to nested hierarchies. And even though it has been proven that Doug Theobald is totally wrong keiths continues to reference him on nested hierarchies. Theobald wrongly spews:

Quote

The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes.

WRONG! Linnaean Taxonomy is an objective nested hierarchy and it doesn't have anything to do with branching evolutionary processes. Corporations can be placed in objective nested hierarchies and again they have nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. The US Army is a nested hierarchy and it too has nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes.

Clearly Theobald is ignorant of nested hierarchies. He goes on to spew:

Quote

It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings

Umm, TRANSITIONAL FORMs have combined characteristics of different nested groups, Dougy. And your position expects numerous transitional forms.

But Doug's biggest mistake was saying that phylogenies form a nested hierarchy- they don't as explained in the Knox paper- “The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics”, Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 63: 1–49, 1998.

And for fuck's sake even Darwin knew that if you tried to include all of the alleged transitional forms you couldn't form distinguished groups:

Quote

Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14

Nested hierarchies require distinct and distinguished groups- again see Linnaean Taxonomy. AND nested hierarchies are artificial constructs.

So only by cherry picking would Common Descent yield a nested hierarchy.

And I understand why the losers here don't want to discuss it.

Zachriel, Alan Fox and John Harshman are also totally ignorant when it comes to nested hierarchies. Now I know why I was banned from the skeptical zone- so I couldn't refute their nonsense to their faces. This way they can continue to ignore reality and prattle on like a bunch of ignoramuses.

Sad, really. Here is another hint from the Knox paper:

Quote

Regardless of what is eventually learned about the evolution of Clarkia/Heterogaura, the complex nature of evolutionary processes yields patterns that are more complex than can be represented by the simple hierarchical models of either monophyletic systematization or Linnaean classiﬁcation.

]

Notice the either or at the end? Only Linnaean classification is the objective nested hierarchy with respect to biology. And what does UC Berkley say about Linnaean classification?:

Quote

Most of us are accustomed to the Linnaean system of classification that assigns every organism a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, which, among other possibilities, has the handy mnemonic King Philip Came Over For Good Soup. This system was created long before scientists understood that organisms evolved. Because the Linnaean system is not based on evolution, most biologists are switching to a classification system that reflects the organisms' evolutionary history.

and

Quote

*The standard system of classification in which every organism is assigned a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. This system groups organisms into ever smaller and smaller groups (like a series of boxes within boxes, called a nested hierarchy).

It was based on a common design scheme.

Davey's ignorant call of "special pleading" is just its cowardice. Davey will never be able to actually make a valid case for it. And I am more than OK with that.

My Challenge to Davey still stands- I will gladly debate him on a neutral forum about nested hierarchies. And then have the readers vote on who won

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code- Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

k.e..

Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 04 2018,09:44

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 04 2018,17:16)

Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,23:37)

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 04 2018,05:28)

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Jan. 03 2018,20:11)

As to another of your primary claims, that of "ice is not water", perhaps you could get up to speed with a grade school physics lesson at the following link:

Quote

Solids, Liquids and Gases: Ice, Water and Steam
Water exists in three states – solid ice, liquid water and gaseous steam.

Again, as the ridiculousness of your initial claim became apparent, you added the "context" of solid versus liquid.

Which doesn't change the fact that both the liquid (water in your "context") and the solid (ice in your "context") are composed of...water.

You're wrong and once again too much of a coward to admit it.

Context is always important, dipshit. And, to top it off, in the thread on my blog that started this huge evoTARDgasm I said that I used a poor choice of words in order to try to make my point. But no, you jerkoffs had to throw your usual ignorant stunts, ignore the context, ignore all attempts at an explanation and ignore the fact that what you have been seeking was already provided.

But it's OK as you have been entertaining.

No Joe there has never been a "context" where frequency and wavelength are interchangeable.

What you don't know and can only get a faint grasp of is that when an Amateur radio guy wants to cut an antenna to it's resonant frequency he must CONVERT frequency to wavelength by using the the general wave formula velocity=lamda/period to determine the length of the antenna.

What is Lamda?

If they were interchangeable (gaffaw) there would be no need for CONVERSION based on the speed of light in this case.

What you propose breaks Einstein's Theory of Relativity which relies on the speed of light being constant (in any given medium).

But then you can't know that can you?

Why?

Answer: JOE IS A TARD.

I provided a context in which frequency and wavelength are interchangeable, Davey. That you are too ignorant to understand it is your problem, not mine.

No Joe tard, you haven't provided a "context" or a method or a process or reason where frequency and wavelength are "interchangeable" what you have provided is mere superficial hand waving with no explanation.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his ~~clown~~ DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

Joe G

Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 04 2018,09:48

Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 04 2018,09:44)

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 04 2018,17:16)

Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,23:37)

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 04 2018,05:28)

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Jan. 03 2018,20:11)

As to another of your primary claims, that of "ice is not water", perhaps you could get up to speed with a grade school physics lesson at the following link:

Quote

Solids, Liquids and Gases: Ice, Water and Steam
Water exists in three states – solid ice, liquid water and gaseous steam.

Again, as the ridiculousness of your initial claim became apparent, you added the "context" of solid versus liquid.

Which doesn't change the fact that both the liquid (water in your "context") and the solid (ice in your "context") are composed of...water.

You're wrong and once again too much of a coward to admit it.

Context is always important, dipshit. And, to top it off, in the thread on my blog that started this huge evoTARDgasm I said that I used a poor choice of words in order to try to make my point. But no, you jerkoffs had to throw your usual ignorant stunts, ignore the context, ignore all attempts at an explanation and ignore the fact that what you have been seeking was already provided.

But it's OK as you have been entertaining.

No Joe there has never been a "context" where frequency and wavelength are interchangeable.

What you don't know and can only get a faint grasp of is that when an Amateur radio guy wants to cut an antenna to it's resonant frequency he must CONVERT frequency to wavelength by using the the general wave formula velocity=lamda/period to determine the length of the antenna.

What is Lamda?

If they were interchangeable (gaffaw) there would be no need for CONVERSION based on the speed of light in this case.

What you propose breaks Einstein's Theory of Relativity which relies on the speed of light being constant (in any given medium).

But then you can't know that can you?

Why?

Answer: JOE IS A TARD.

I provided a context in which frequency and wavelength are interchangeable, Davey. That you are too ignorant to understand it is your problem, not mine.

No Joe tard, you haven't provided a "context" or a method or a process or reason where frequency and wavelength are "interchangeable" what you have provided is mere superficial hand waving with no explanation.

Your willful ignorance is neither and argument nor a refutation.

This page shows tghey are interchangeable in a specific context. That is what the dash means:

2200 meters – 135.7–137.8 kHz

630 meters – 472–479 kHz

And if you follow the links there you will read:

160 meters refers to the band of radio frequencies between 1800 and 2000 kHz

That is what INTERCHANGEABLE means

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code- Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

k.e..

Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 04 2018,09:53

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 04 2018,17:21)

keiths continues to puke all over himself when it comes to nested hierarchies. And even though it has been proven that Doug Theobald is totally wrong keiths continues to reference him on nested hierarchies. Theobald wrongly spews:

Quote

The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes.

WRONG! Linnaean Taxonomy is an objective nested hierarchy and it doesn't have anything to do with branching evolutionary processes. Corporations can be placed in objective nested hierarchies and again they have nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. The US Army is a nested hierarchy and it too has nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes.

Clearly Theobald is ignorant of nested hierarchies. He goes on to spew:

Quote

It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings

Umm, TRANSITIONAL FORMs have combined characteristics of different nested groups, Dougy. And your position expects numerous transitional forms.

But Doug's biggest mistake was saying that phylogenies form a nested hierarchy- they don't as explained in the Knox paper- “The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics”, Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 63: 1–49, 1998.

And for fuck's sake even Darwin knew that if you tried to include all of the alleged transitional forms you couldn't form distinguished groups:

Quote

Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14

Nested hierarchies require distinct and distinguished groups- again see Linnaean Taxonomy. AND nested hierarchies are artificial constructs.

So only by cherry picking would Common Descent yield a nested hierarchy.

And I understand why the losers here don't want to discuss it.

Zachriel, Alan Fox and John Harshman are also totally ignorant when it comes to nested hierarchies. Now I know why I was banned from the skeptical zone- so I couldn't refute their nonsense to their faces. This way they can continue to ignore reality and prattle on like a bunch of ignoramuses.

Sad, really. Here is another hint from the Knox paper:

Quote

Regardless of what is eventually learned about the evolution of Clarkia/Heterogaura, the complex nature of evolutionary processes yields patterns that are more complex than can be represented by the simple hierarchical models of either monophyletic systematization or Linnaean classiﬁcation.

]

Notice the either or at the end? Only Linnaean classification is the objective nested hierarchy with respect to biology. And what does UC Berkley say about Linnaean classification?:

Quote

Most of us are accustomed to the Linnaean system of classification that assigns every organism a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, which, among other possibilities, has the handy mnemonic King Philip Came Over For Good Soup. This system was created long before scientists understood that organisms evolved. Because the Linnaean system is not based on evolution, most biologists are switching to a classification system that reflects the organisms' evolutionary history.

and

Quote

*The standard system of classification in which every organism is assigned a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. This system groups organisms into ever smaller and smaller groups (like a series of boxes within boxes, called a nested hierarchy).

It was based on a common design scheme.

Davey's ignorant call of "special pleading" is just its cowardice. Davey will never be able to actually make a valid case for it. And I am more than OK with that.

My Challenge to Davey still stands- I will gladly debate him on a neutral forum about nested hierarchies. And then have the readers vote on who won

Joe the only reason you show up here for an old fashioned ass kicking so regularly is because you are a sad deluded seriously lonely fool/tard with too much time on your hands.

On top of that nobody bothers going to your blog where you are trying to peddle the same bullshit and you are so lonely. S

o kindly lift your game and tidy up your attitude and get off the creationist cool aid for a day or two and design some other bullshit because the horse you are flogging is well and truly dead.

Joe you are mistaking the attention you are getting here for an interest in you.

The fact is everyone is just enjoying laughing at you.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his ~~clown~~ DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

Joe G

Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 04 2018,09:55

Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 04 2018,09:53)

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 04 2018,17:21)

keiths continues to puke all over himself when it comes to nested hierarchies. And even though it has been proven that Doug Theobald is totally wrong keiths continues to reference him on nested hierarchies. Theobald wrongly spews:

Quote

The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes.

WRONG! Linnaean Taxonomy is an objective nested hierarchy and it doesn't have anything to do with branching evolutionary processes. Corporations can be placed in objective nested hierarchies and again they have nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. The US Army is a nested hierarchy and it too has nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes.

Clearly Theobald is ignorant of nested hierarchies. He goes on to spew:

Quote

It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings

Umm, TRANSITIONAL FORMs have combined characteristics of different nested groups, Dougy. And your position expects numerous transitional forms.

But Doug's biggest mistake was saying that phylogenies form a nested hierarchy- they don't as explained in the Knox paper- “The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics”, Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 63: 1–49, 1998.

And for fuck's sake even Darwin knew that if you tried to include all of the alleged transitional forms you couldn't form distinguished groups:

Quote

Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14

Nested hierarchies require distinct and distinguished groups- again see Linnaean Taxonomy. AND nested hierarchies are artificial constructs.

So only by cherry picking would Common Descent yield a nested hierarchy.

And I understand why the losers here don't want to discuss it.

Zachriel, Alan Fox and John Harshman are also totally ignorant when it comes to nested hierarchies. Now I know why I was banned from the skeptical zone- so I couldn't refute their nonsense to their faces. This way they can continue to ignore reality and prattle on like a bunch of ignoramuses.

Sad, really. Here is another hint from the Knox paper:

Quote

Regardless of what is eventually learned about the evolution of Clarkia/Heterogaura, the complex nature of evolutionary processes yields patterns that are more complex than can be represented by the simple hierarchical models of either monophyletic systematization or Linnaean classiﬁcation.

]

Notice the either or at the end? Only Linnaean classification is the objective nested hierarchy with respect to biology. And what does UC Berkley say about Linnaean classification?:

Quote

Most of us are accustomed to the Linnaean system of classification that assigns every organism a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, which, among other possibilities, has the handy mnemonic King Philip Came Over For Good Soup. This system was created long before scientists understood that organisms evolved. Because the Linnaean system is not based on evolution, most biologists are switching to a classification system that reflects the organisms' evolutionary history.

and

Quote

*The standard system of classification in which every organism is assigned a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. This system groups organisms into ever smaller and smaller groups (like a series of boxes within boxes, called a nested hierarchy).

It was based on a common design scheme.

Davey's ignorant call of "special pleading" is just its cowardice. Davey will never be able to actually make a valid case for it. And I am more than OK with that.

My Challenge to Davey still stands- I will gladly debate him on a neutral forum about nested hierarchies. And then have the readers vote on who won

Joe the only reason you show up here for an old fashioned ass kicking so regularly is because you are a sad deluded seriously lonely fool/tard with too much time on your hands.

On top of that nobody bothers going to your blog where you are trying to peddle the same bullshit and you are so lonely. S

o kindly lift your game and tidy up your attitude and get off the creationist cool aid for a day or two and design some other bullshit because the horse you are flogging is well and truly dead.

Joe you are mistaking the attention you are getting here for an interest in you.

The fact is everyone is just enjoying laughing at you.

And yet no one here has ever kicked my ass. Reality demonstrates quite the opposite. Not one of you can find any evidence to support the claims of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. You don't even have a scientific theory.

And you are all proudly ignorant of nested hierarchies.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code- Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

k.e..

Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 04 2018,09:57

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 04 2018,17:48)

Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 04 2018,09:44)

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 04 2018,17:16)

Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,23:37)

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 04 2018,05:28)

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Jan. 03 2018,20:11)

As to another of your primary claims, that of "ice is not water", perhaps you could get up to speed with a grade school physics lesson at the following link:

Quote

Solids, Liquids and Gases: Ice, Water and Steam
Water exists in three states – solid ice, liquid water and gaseous steam.

Again, as the ridiculousness of your initial claim became apparent, you added the "context" of solid versus liquid.

Which doesn't change the fact that both the liquid (water in your "context") and the solid (ice in your "context") are composed of...water.

You're wrong and once again too much of a coward to admit it.

Context is always important, dipshit. And, to top it off, in the thread on my blog that started this huge evoTARDgasm I said that I used a poor choice of words in order to try to make my point. But no, you jerkoffs had to throw your usual ignorant stunts, ignore the context, ignore all attempts at an explanation and ignore the fact that what you have been seeking was already provided.

But it's OK as you have been entertaining.

No Joe there has never been a "context" where frequency and wavelength are interchangeable.

What you don't know and can only get a faint grasp of is that when an Amateur radio guy wants to cut an antenna to it's resonant frequency he must CONVERT frequency to wavelength by using the the general wave formula velocity=lamda/period to determine the length of the antenna.

What is Lamda?

If they were interchangeable (gaffaw) there would be no need for CONVERSION based on the speed of light in this case.

What you propose breaks Einstein's Theory of Relativity which relies on the speed of light being constant (in any given medium).

But then you can't know that can you?

Why?

Answer: JOE IS A TARD.

I provided a context in which frequency and wavelength are interchangeable, Davey. That you are too ignorant to understand it is your problem, not mine.

No Joe tard, you haven't provided a "context" or a method or a process or reason where frequency and wavelength are "interchangeable" what you have provided is mere superficial hand waving with no explanation.

Your willful ignorance is neither and argument nor a refutation.

This page shows tghey are interchangeable in a specific context. That is what the dash means:

2200 meters – 135.7–137.8 kHz

630 meters – 472–479 kHz

And if you follow the links there you will read:

160 meters refers to the band of radio frequencies between 1800 and 2000 kHz

That is what INTERCHANGEABLE means

Joe you are talking out of your ass. A "band of wavelengths" refers to a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum as a general classification as quick reference not a specific frequency.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his ~~clown~~ DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

Joe G

Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 04 2018,09:57

I will gladly take on Davey in a neutral forum in a debate on nested hierarchies or a debate on ID vs evolution by means of blind and mindless processes- which side has the science and which is just based on ignorance. I will take ID.

The loser has to stop posting to the internet on the subject.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code- Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

k.e..

Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 04 2018,09:58

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 04 2018,17:55)

Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 04 2018,09:53)

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 04 2018,17:21)

keiths continues to puke all over himself when it comes to nested hierarchies. And even though it has been proven that Doug Theobald is totally wrong keiths continues to reference him on nested hierarchies. Theobald wrongly spews:

Quote

The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes.

WRONG! Linnaean Taxonomy is an objective nested hierarchy and it doesn't have anything to do with branching evolutionary processes. Corporations can be placed in objective nested hierarchies and again they have nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. The US Army is a nested hierarchy and it too has nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes.

Clearly Theobald is ignorant of nested hierarchies. He goes on to spew:

Quote

It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings

Umm, TRANSITIONAL FORMs have combined characteristics of different nested groups, Dougy. And your position expects numerous transitional forms.

But Doug's biggest mistake was saying that phylogenies form a nested hierarchy- they don't as explained in the Knox paper- “The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics”, Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 63: 1–49, 1998.

And for fuck's sake even Darwin knew that if you tried to include all of the alleged transitional forms you couldn't form distinguished groups:

Quote

Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14

Nested hierarchies require distinct and distinguished groups- again see Linnaean Taxonomy. AND nested hierarchies are artificial constructs.

So only by cherry picking would Common Descent yield a nested hierarchy.

And I understand why the losers here don't want to discuss it.

Zachriel, Alan Fox and John Harshman are also totally ignorant when it comes to nested hierarchies. Now I know why I was banned from the skeptical zone- so I couldn't refute their nonsense to their faces. This way they can continue to ignore reality and prattle on like a bunch of ignoramuses.

Sad, really. Here is another hint from the Knox paper:

Quote

Regardless of what is eventually learned about the evolution of Clarkia/Heterogaura, the complex nature of evolutionary processes yields patterns that are more complex than can be represented by the simple hierarchical models of either monophyletic systematization or Linnaean classiﬁcation.

]

Notice the either or at the end? Only Linnaean classification is the objective nested hierarchy with respect to biology. And what does UC Berkley say about Linnaean classification?:

Quote

Most of us are accustomed to the Linnaean system of classification that assigns every organism a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, which, among other possibilities, has the handy mnemonic King Philip Came Over For Good Soup. This system was created long before scientists understood that organisms evolved. Because the Linnaean system is not based on evolution, most biologists are switching to a classification system that reflects the organisms' evolutionary history.

and

Quote

*The standard system of classification in which every organism is assigned a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. This system groups organisms into ever smaller and smaller groups (like a series of boxes within boxes, called a nested hierarchy).

It was based on a common design scheme.

Davey's ignorant call of "special pleading" is just its cowardice. Davey will never be able to actually make a valid case for it. And I am more than OK with that.

My Challenge to Davey still stands- I will gladly debate him on a neutral forum about nested hierarchies. And then have the readers vote on who won

Joe the only reason you show up here for an old fashioned ass kicking so regularly is because you are a sad deluded seriously lonely fool/tard with too much time on your hands.

On top of that nobody bothers going to your blog where you are trying to peddle the same bullshit and you are so lonely. S

o kindly lift your game and tidy up your attitude and get off the creationist cool aid for a day or two and design some other bullshit because the horse you are flogging is well and truly dead.

Joe you are mistaking the attention you are getting here for an interest in you.

The fact is everyone is just enjoying laughing at you.

And yet no one here has ever kicked my ass. Reality demonstrates quite the opposite. Not one of you can find any evidence to support the claims of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. You don't even have a scientific theory.

And you are all proudly ignorant of nested hierarchies.

Only in your tiny mind fool otherwise your vomit would be in PubMed.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his ~~clown~~ DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

Joe G

Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 04 2018,09:58

Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 04 2018,09:57)

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 04 2018,17:48)

Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 04 2018,09:44)

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 04 2018,17:16)

Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,23:37)

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 04 2018,05:28)

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Jan. 03 2018,20:11)

As to another of your primary claims, that of "ice is not water", perhaps you could get up to speed with a grade school physics lesson at the following link:

Quote

Solids, Liquids and Gases: Ice, Water and Steam
Water exists in three states – solid ice, liquid water and gaseous steam.

Again, as the ridiculousness of your initial claim became apparent, you added the "context" of solid versus liquid.

Which doesn't change the fact that both the liquid (water in your "context") and the solid (ice in your "context") are composed of...water.

You're wrong and once again too much of a coward to admit it.

Context is always important, dipshit. And, to top it off, in the thread on my blog that started this huge evoTARDgasm I said that I used a poor choice of words in order to try to make my point. But no, you jerkoffs had to throw your usual ignorant stunts, ignore the context, ignore all attempts at an explanation and ignore the fact that what you have been seeking was already provided.

But it's OK as you have been entertaining.

No Joe there has never been a "context" where frequency and wavelength are interchangeable.

What you don't know and can only get a faint grasp of is that when an Amateur radio guy wants to cut an antenna to it's resonant frequency he must CONVERT frequency to wavelength by using the the general wave formula velocity=lamda/period to determine the length of the antenna.

What is Lamda?

If they were interchangeable (gaffaw) there would be no need for CONVERSION based on the speed of light in this case.

What you propose breaks Einstein's Theory of Relativity which relies on the speed of light being constant (in any given medium).

But then you can't know that can you?

Why?

Answer: JOE IS A TARD.

I provided a context in which frequency and wavelength are interchangeable, Davey. That you are too ignorant to understand it is your problem, not mine.

No Joe tard, you haven't provided a "context" or a method or a process or reason where frequency and wavelength are "interchangeable" what you have provided is mere superficial hand waving with no explanation.

Your willful ignorance is neither and argument nor a refutation.

This page shows tghey are interchangeable in a specific context. That is what the dash means:

2200 meters – 135.7–137.8 kHz

630 meters – 472–479 kHz

And if you follow the links there you will read:

160 meters refers to the band of radio frequencies between 1800 and 2000 kHz

That is what INTERCHANGEABLE means

Joe you are talking out of your ass. A "band of wavelengths" refers to a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum as a general classification as quick reference not a specific frequency.

Davey, you are a willfully ignorant ass.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code- Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G

Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 04 2018,09:59

Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 04 2018,09:58)

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 04 2018,17:55)

Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 04 2018,09:53)

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 04 2018,17:21)

keiths continues to puke all over himself when it comes to nested hierarchies. And even though it has been proven that Doug Theobald is totally wrong keiths continues to reference him on nested hierarchies. Theobald wrongly spews:

Quote

The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes.

WRONG! Linnaean Taxonomy is an objective nested hierarchy and it doesn't have anything to do with branching evolutionary processes. Corporations can be placed in objective nested hierarchies and again they have nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. The US Army is a nested hierarchy and it too has nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes.

Clearly Theobald is ignorant of nested hierarchies. He goes on to spew:

Quote

It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings

Umm, TRANSITIONAL FORMs have combined characteristics of different nested groups, Dougy. And your position expects numerous transitional forms.

But Doug's biggest mistake was saying that phylogenies form a nested hierarchy- they don't as explained in the Knox paper- “The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics”, Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 63: 1–49, 1998.

And for fuck's sake even Darwin knew that if you tried to include all of the alleged transitional forms you couldn't form distinguished groups:

Quote

Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14

Nested hierarchies require distinct and distinguished groups- again see Linnaean Taxonomy. AND nested hierarchies are artificial constructs.

So only by cherry picking would Common Descent yield a nested hierarchy.

And I understand why the losers here don't want to discuss it.

Zachriel, Alan Fox and John Harshman are also totally ignorant when it comes to nested hierarchies. Now I know why I was banned from the skeptical zone- so I couldn't refute their nonsense to their faces. This way they can continue to ignore reality and prattle on like a bunch of ignoramuses.

Sad, really. Here is another hint from the Knox paper:

Quote

Regardless of what is eventually learned about the evolution of Clarkia/Heterogaura, the complex nature of evolutionary processes yields patterns that are more complex than can be represented by the simple hierarchical models of either monophyletic systematization or Linnaean classiﬁcation.

]

Notice the either or at the end? Only Linnaean classification is the objective nested hierarchy with respect to biology. And what does UC Berkley say about Linnaean classification?:

Quote

Most of us are accustomed to the Linnaean system of classification that assigns every organism a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, which, among other possibilities, has the handy mnemonic King Philip Came Over For Good Soup. This system was created long before scientists understood that organisms evolved. Because the Linnaean system is not based on evolution, most biologists are switching to a classification system that reflects the organisms' evolutionary history.

and

Quote

*The standard system of classification in which every organism is assigned a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. This system groups organisms into ever smaller and smaller groups (like a series of boxes within boxes, called a nested hierarchy).

It was based on a common design scheme.

Davey's ignorant call of "special pleading" is just its cowardice. Davey will never be able to actually make a valid case for it. And I am more than OK with that.

My Challenge to Davey still stands- I will gladly debate him on a neutral forum about nested hierarchies. And then have the readers vote on who won

Joe the only reason you show up here for an old fashioned ass kicking so regularly is because you are a sad deluded seriously lonely fool/tard with too much time on your hands.

On top of that nobody bothers going to your blog where you are trying to peddle the same bullshit and you are so lonely. S

o kindly lift your game and tidy up your attitude and get off the creationist cool aid for a day or two and design some other bullshit because the horse you are flogging is well and truly dead.

Joe you are mistaking the attention you are getting here for an interest in you.

The fact is everyone is just enjoying laughing at you.

And yet no one here has ever kicked my ass. Reality demonstrates quite the opposite. Not one of you can find any evidence to support the claims of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. You don't even have a scientific theory.

And you are all proudly ignorant of nested hierarchies.

Only in your tiny mind fool otherwise your vomit would be in PubMed.

Whatever, Davey. I have noticed that all you can do is shit yourself. That doesn't refute anything I have posted

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code- Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

k.e..

Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 04 2018,10:00

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 04 2018,17:57)

I will gladly take on Davey in a neutral forum in a debate on nested hierarchies or a debate on ID vs evolution by means of blind and mindless processes- which side has the science and which is just based on ignorance. I will take ID.

The loser has to stop posting to the internet on the subject.

Shall we ask Mr On Lookers Joe tard?....go on Joe ask anyone here you like.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his ~~clown~~ DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

Joe G

Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 04 2018,10:02

Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 04 2018,10:00)

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 04 2018,17:57)

I will gladly take on Davey in a neutral forum in a debate on nested hierarchies or a debate on ID vs evolution by means of blind and mindless processes- which side has the science and which is just based on ignorance. I will take ID.

The loser has to stop posting to the internet on the subject.

Shall we ask Mr On Lookers Joe tard?....go on Joe ask anyone here you like.

NEUTRAL FORUM, dumbass. The losers here are proven ignoramuses. But I know that you need your friends to help you with this as you won't stand a chance on a neutral forum, loser.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code- Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

k.e..

Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 04 2018,10:02

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 04 2018,17:59)

Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 04 2018,09:58)

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 04 2018,17:55)

Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 04 2018,09:53)

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 04 2018,17:21)

keiths continues to puke all over himself when it comes to nested hierarchies. And even though it has been proven that Doug Theobald is totally wrong keiths continues to reference him on nested hierarchies. Theobald wrongly spews:

Quote

The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes.

WRONG! Linnaean Taxonomy is an objective nested hierarchy and it doesn't have anything to do with branching evolutionary processes. Corporations can be placed in objective nested hierarchies and again they have nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. The US Army is a nested hierarchy and it too has nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes.

Clearly Theobald is ignorant of nested hierarchies. He goes on to spew:

Quote

It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings

Umm, TRANSITIONAL FORMs have combined characteristics of different nested groups, Dougy. And your position expects numerous transitional forms.

But Doug's biggest mistake was saying that phylogenies form a nested hierarchy- they don't as explained in the Knox paper- “The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics”, Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 63: 1–49, 1998.

And for fuck's sake even Darwin knew that if you tried to include all of the alleged transitional forms you couldn't form distinguished groups:

Quote

Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14

Nested hierarchies require distinct and distinguished groups- again see Linnaean Taxonomy. AND nested hierarchies are artificial constructs.

So only by cherry picking would Common Descent yield a nested hierarchy.

And I understand why the losers here don't want to discuss it.

Zachriel, Alan Fox and John Harshman are also totally ignorant when it comes to nested hierarchies. Now I know why I was banned from the skeptical zone- so I couldn't refute their nonsense to their faces. This way they can continue to ignore reality and prattle on like a bunch of ignoramuses.

Sad, really. Here is another hint from the Knox paper:

Quote

Regardless of what is eventually learned about the evolution of Clarkia/Heterogaura, the complex nature of evolutionary processes yields patterns that are more complex than can be represented by the simple hierarchical models of either monophyletic systematization or Linnaean classiﬁcation.

]

Notice the either or at the end? Only Linnaean classification is the objective nested hierarchy with respect to biology. And what does UC Berkley say about Linnaean classification?:

Quote

Most of us are accustomed to the Linnaean system of classification that assigns every organism a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, which, among other possibilities, has the handy mnemonic King Philip Came Over For Good Soup. This system was created long before scientists understood that organisms evolved. Because the Linnaean system is not based on evolution, most biologists are switching to a classification system that reflects the organisms' evolutionary history.

and

Quote

*The standard system of classification in which every organism is assigned a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. This system groups organisms into ever smaller and smaller groups (like a series of boxes within boxes, called a nested hierarchy).

It was based on a common design scheme.

Davey's ignorant call of "special pleading" is just its cowardice. Davey will never be able to actually make a valid case for it. And I am more than OK with that.

My Challenge to Davey still stands- I will gladly debate him on a neutral forum about nested hierarchies. And then have the readers vote on who won

Joe the only reason you show up here for an old fashioned ass kicking so regularly is because you are a sad deluded seriously lonely fool/tard with too much time on your hands.

On top of that nobody bothers going to your blog where you are trying to peddle the same bullshit and you are so lonely. S

o kindly lift your game and tidy up your attitude and get off the creationist cool aid for a day or two and design some other bullshit because the horse you are flogging is well and truly dead.

Joe you are mistaking the attention you are getting here for an interest in you.

The fact is everyone is just enjoying laughing at you.

And yet no one here has ever kicked my ass. Reality demonstrates quite the opposite. Not one of you can find any evidence to support the claims of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. You don't even have a scientific theory.

And you are all proudly ignorant of nested hierarchies.

Only in your tiny mind fool otherwise your vomit would be in PubMed.

Whatever, Davey. I have noticed that all you can do is shit yourself. That doesn't refute anything I have posted

Joe I really like your arguments. They are rational, logical and stay away from over the top hyperbole. You have convinced me.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his ~~clown~~ DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

Joe G

Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 04 2018,10:03

Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 04 2018,10:02)

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 04 2018,17:59)

Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 04 2018,09:58)

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 04 2018,17:55)

Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 04 2018,09:53)

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 04 2018,17:21)

keiths continues to puke all over himself when it comes to nested hierarchies. And even though it has been proven that Doug Theobald is totally wrong keiths continues to reference him on nested hierarchies. Theobald wrongly spews:

Quote

The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes.

WRONG! Linnaean Taxonomy is an objective nested hierarchy and it doesn't have anything to do with branching evolutionary processes. Corporations can be placed in objective nested hierarchies and again they have nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. The US Army is a nested hierarchy and it too has nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes.

Clearly Theobald is ignorant of nested hierarchies. He goes on to spew:

Quote

It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings

Umm, TRANSITIONAL FORMs have combined characteristics of different nested groups, Dougy. And your position expects numerous transitional forms.

But Doug's biggest mistake was saying that phylogenies form a nested hierarchy- they don't as explained in the Knox paper- “The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics”, Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 63: 1–49, 1998.

And for fuck's sake even Darwin knew that if you tried to include all of the alleged transitional forms you couldn't form distinguished groups:

Quote

Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14

Nested hierarchies require distinct and distinguished groups- again see Linnaean Taxonomy. AND nested hierarchies are artificial constructs.

So only by cherry picking would Common Descent yield a nested hierarchy.

And I understand why the losers here don't want to discuss it.

Zachriel, Alan Fox and John Harshman are also totally ignorant when it comes to nested hierarchies. Now I know why I was banned from the skeptical zone- so I couldn't refute their nonsense to their faces. This way they can continue to ignore reality and prattle on like a bunch of ignoramuses.

Sad, really. Here is another hint from the Knox paper:

Quote

Regardless of what is eventually learned about the evolution of Clarkia/Heterogaura, the complex nature of evolutionary processes yields patterns that are more complex than can be represented by the simple hierarchical models of either monophyletic systematization or Linnaean classiﬁcation.

]

Notice the either or at the end? Only Linnaean classification is the objective nested hierarchy with respect to biology. And what does UC Berkley say about Linnaean classification?:

Quote

Most of us are accustomed to the Linnaean system of classification that assigns every organism a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, which, among other possibilities, has the handy mnemonic King Philip Came Over For Good Soup. This system was created long before scientists understood that organisms evolved. Because the Linnaean system is not based on evolution, most biologists are switching to a classification system that reflects the organisms' evolutionary history.

and

Quote

*The standard system of classification in which every organism is assigned a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. This system groups organisms into ever smaller and smaller groups (like a series of boxes within boxes, called a nested hierarchy).

It was based on a common design scheme.

Davey's ignorant call of "special pleading" is just its cowardice. Davey will never be able to actually make a valid case for it. And I am more than OK with that.

My Challenge to Davey still stands- I will gladly debate him on a neutral forum about nested hierarchies. And then have the readers vote on who won

Joe the only reason you show up here for an old fashioned ass kicking so regularly is because you are a sad deluded seriously lonely fool/tard with too much time on your hands.

On top of that nobody bothers going to your blog where you are trying to peddle the same bullshit and you are so lonely. S

o kindly lift your game and tidy up your attitude and get off the creationist cool aid for a day or two and design some other bullshit because the horse you are flogging is well and truly dead.

Joe you are mistaking the attention you are getting here for an interest in you.

The fact is everyone is just enjoying laughing at you.

And yet no one here has ever kicked my ass. Reality demonstrates quite the opposite. Not one of you can find any evidence to support the claims of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. You don't even have a scientific theory.

And you are all proudly ignorant of nested hierarchies.

Only in your tiny mind fool otherwise your vomit would be in PubMed.

Whatever, Davey. I have noticed that all you can do is shit yourself. That doesn't refute anything I have posted

Joe I really like your arguments. They are rational, logical and stay away from over the top hyperbole. You have convinced me.

You don't have any arguments, Davey. You are just a loser coward

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code- Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

k.e..

Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 04 2018,10:04

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 04 2018,18:02)

Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 04 2018,10:00)

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 04 2018,17:57)

I will gladly take on Davey in a neutral forum in a debate on nested hierarchies or a debate on ID vs evolution by means of blind and mindless processes- which side has the science and which is just based on ignorance. I will take ID.

The loser has to stop posting to the internet on the subject.

Shall we ask Mr On Lookers Joe tard?....go on Joe ask anyone here you like.

NEUTRAL FORUM, dumbass. The losers here are proven ignoramuses. But I know that you need your friends to help you with this as you won't stand a chance on a neutral forum, loser.

Nobody is barred from commenting here Joe unlike UD.

Which by the way has to regularly delouse itself when you infest it with your sock puppets.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his ~~clown~~ DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

Joe G

Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 04 2018,10:05

Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 04 2018,10:04)

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 04 2018,18:02)

Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 04 2018,10:00)

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 04 2018,17:57)

I will gladly take on Davey in a neutral forum in a debate on nested hierarchies or a debate on ID vs evolution by means of blind and mindless processes- which side has the science and which is just based on ignorance. I will take ID.

The loser has to stop posting to the internet on the subject.

Shall we ask Mr On Lookers Joe tard?....go on Joe ask anyone here you like.

NEUTRAL FORUM, dumbass. The losers here are proven ignoramuses. But I know that you need your friends to help you with this as you won't stand a chance on a neutral forum, loser.

Nobody is barred from commenting here Joe unlike UD.

Which by the way has to regularly delouse itself when you infest it with your sock puppets.

Nice non-response, moron. Neutral forum, Davey or are you chicken-shit?

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code- Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

k.e..

Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 04 2018,10:07

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 04 2018,18:03)

Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 04 2018,10:02)

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 04 2018,17:59)

Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 04 2018,09:58)

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 04 2018,17:55)

Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 04 2018,09:53)

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 04 2018,17:21)

keiths continues to puke all over himself when it comes to nested hierarchies. And even though it has been proven that Doug Theobald is totally wrong keiths continues to reference him on nested hierarchies. Theobald wrongly spews:

Quote

The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes.

WRONG! Linnaean Taxonomy is an objective nested hierarchy and it doesn't have anything to do with branching evolutionary processes. Corporations can be placed in objective nested hierarchies and again they have nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. The US Army is a nested hierarchy and it too has nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes.

Clearly Theobald is ignorant of nested hierarchies. He goes on to spew:

Quote

It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings

Umm, TRANSITIONAL FORMs have combined characteristics of different nested groups, Dougy. And your position expects numerous transitional forms.

But Doug's biggest mistake was saying that phylogenies form a nested hierarchy- they don't as explained in the Knox paper- “The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics”, Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 63: 1–49, 1998.

And for fuck's sake even Darwin knew that if you tried to include all of the alleged transitional forms you couldn't form distinguished groups:

Quote

Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14

Nested hierarchies require distinct and distinguished groups- again see Linnaean Taxonomy. AND nested hierarchies are artificial constructs.

So only by cherry picking would Common Descent yield a nested hierarchy.

And I understand why the losers here don't want to discuss it.

Zachriel, Alan Fox and John Harshman are also totally ignorant when it comes to nested hierarchies. Now I know why I was banned from the skeptical zone- so I couldn't refute their nonsense to their faces. This way they can continue to ignore reality and prattle on like a bunch of ignoramuses.

Sad, really. Here is another hint from the Knox paper:

Quote

Regardless of what is eventually learned about the evolution of Clarkia/Heterogaura, the complex nature of evolutionary processes yields patterns that are more complex than can be represented by the simple hierarchical models of either monophyletic systematization or Linnaean classiﬁcation.

]

Notice the either or at the end? Only Linnaean classification is the objective nested hierarchy with respect to biology. And what does UC Berkley say about Linnaean classification?:

Quote

Most of us are accustomed to the Linnaean system of classification that assigns every organism a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, which, among other possibilities, has the handy mnemonic King Philip Came Over For Good Soup. This system was created long before scientists understood that organisms evolved. Because the Linnaean system is not based on evolution, most biologists are switching to a classification system that reflects the organisms' evolutionary history.

and

Quote

*The standard system of classification in which every organism is assigned a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. This system groups organisms into ever smaller and smaller groups (like a series of boxes within boxes, called a nested hierarchy).

It was based on a common design scheme.

Davey's ignorant call of "special pleading" is just its cowardice. Davey will never be able to actually make a valid case for it. And I am more than OK with that.

My Challenge to Davey still stands- I will gladly debate him on a neutral forum about nested hierarchies. And then have the readers vote on who won

Joe the only reason you show up here for an old fashioned ass kicking so regularly is because you are a sad deluded seriously lonely fool/tard with too much time on your hands.

On top of that nobody bothers going to your blog where you are trying to peddle the same bullshit and you are so lonely. S

o kindly lift your game and tidy up your attitude and get off the creationist cool aid for a day or two and design some other bullshit because the horse you are flogging is well and truly dead.

Joe you are mistaking the attention you are getting here for an interest in you.

The fact is everyone is just enjoying laughing at you.

And yet no one here has ever kicked my ass. Reality demonstrates quite the opposite. Not one of you can find any evidence to support the claims of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. You don't even have a scientific theory.

And you are all proudly ignorant of nested hierarchies.

Only in your tiny mind fool otherwise your vomit would be in PubMed.

Whatever, Davey. I have noticed that all you can do is shit yourself. That doesn't refute anything I have posted

Joe I really like your arguments. They are rational, logical and stay away from over the top hyperbole. You have convinced me.

You don't have any arguments, Davey. You are just a loser coward

Unlike you Joe who only has creationist S-P-E-C-I-A-L P-L-E-A-D-I-N-G because Joe Tard is S-P-E-C-I-A-L.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his ~~clown~~ DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

Joe G

Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 04 2018,10:08

Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 04 2018,10:07)