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

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

Pages: (919) < ... 236 237 238 239 240 [241] 242 243 244 245 246 ... >

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2014,15:33    Quote (JonF @ Feb. 19 2014,10:33) Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 18 2014,17:08) Joe, you do know that's tantamount to saying "i know absolutely fuck all about basic, middle-school-level physics", don't you? The scary thing about Waltie-poo is that he occasionally gets something right. He's pretty sound on the problems with a vapor/ice canopys tantamount to saying True, but he substitutes a completely unfeasible thing with another completely unfeasible thing (indeed, a sequence of unfeasible things).  Poof! would be considerably more plausible. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Tracy P. Hamilton Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2014,16:30    Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 19 2014,15:33) Quote (JonF @ Feb. 19 2014,10:33) Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 18 2014,17:08) Joe, you do know that's tantamount to saying "i know absolutely fuck all about basic, middle-school-level physics", don't you? The scary thing about Waltie-poo is that he occasionally gets something right. He's pretty sound on the problems with a vapor/ice canopys tantamount to saying True, but he substitutes a completely unfeasible thing with another completely unfeasible thing (indeed, a sequence of unfeasible things).  Poof! would be considerably more plausible. Walt Brown came up with the Hydroplane theory.  Continents were moving around at much the same rates as now, being braked by friction.  Then the flood happened, the continents hydroplaned on the water and veered out of control.  When the waters receded continents regained their traction.   My mockery is not substantially different from the real "theory". -------------- "Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV "The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen "We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2014,16:55    Meaning we need not worry about rising ocean levels; the continents will "hydroplane"? Good news indeed! -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2014,17:50    Quote (Quack @ Feb. 19 2014,14:55) Meaning we need not worry about rising ocean levels; the continents will "hydroplane"? Good news indeed! Only if all the water which flew off to the Kuiper belt, via an otherwise unknown form of orbital mechanics*, comes back. * Brownian motion? -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Texas Teach Posts: 2084 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2014,18:46    Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 19 2014,13:29) I took a quick scan through his writings. What's funny is that he thinks everything I write on my blog is an assault on him. Poor Joe, so clueless, so arrogant, so egotistical. Joe, let's be clear, you don't know any more about ID than anyone else. You are a loud guy with a blog. Your thoughts on ID, evolution, and the Bible are just that (and only that) your thoughts. My writings respond to specific claims. You may or may not have made that claim, but it is still an ID claim, because someone who claims to be an ID proponent has made the claim. If you have a problem with what I write about, then I would suggest you get with your fellow ID proponents and come up with a SINGLE, testable, notion of ID. I demand that you retract your scurrilous accusations!  Joe does not have thoughts. -------------- "Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr "I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2014,13:32    Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 19 2014,13:29) I took a quick scan through his writings. What's funny is that he thinks everything I write on my blog is an assault on him. Poor Joe, so clueless, so arrogant, so egotistical. Joe, let's be clear, you don't know any more about ID than anyone else. You are a loud guy with a blog. Your thoughts on ID, evolution, and the Bible are just that (and only that) your thoughts. My writings respond to specific claims. You may or may not have made that claim, but it is still an ID claim, because someone who claims to be an ID proponent has made the claim. If you have a problem with what I write about, then I would suggest you get with your fellow ID proponents and come up with a SINGLE, testable, notion of ID. Kevin, let's be very clear- you are an asshole and a liar. I do not think that everything you write is an attack on me- not even close. You attack science and reasoning. You are a pathetic little maggot. And I forgot more about ID than you will ever know. And I know more about evolution than you do. That has been proven time and again. Your writings attack strawman after starwman because you are willfully ignorant. And I have provided a way to test and flasify ID- again your ignorance means nothing. OTOH you, like the baby you are, deny that blind watchmaker evolution is what the current rendition of evolution posits. You accuse me of creating a strawman with blind watchmaker evolution and yet that is what Darwin, Dawkins, Coyne, Mayr, et al., promote or promoted. -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2014,13:39    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 16 2014,08:10) Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 16 2014,08:01) There you have it- to falsify Intelligent Design all one has to do is demonstrate that natural selection can produce irreducibly complex biological systems. You lose Fatty.   Quote Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation Bridgham, Carroll, Thornton Science, Science 7 April 2006: Vol. 312 no. 5770 pp. 97-101 Abstract:  According to Darwinian theory, complexity evolves by a stepwise process of elaboration and optimization under natural selection. Biological systems composed of tightly integrated parts seem to challenge this view, because it is not obvious how any element's function can be selected for unless the partners with which it interacts are already present. Here we demonstrate how an integrated molecular system—the specific functional interaction between the steroid hormone aldosterone and its partner the mineralocorticoid receptor—evolved by a stepwise Darwinian process. Using ancestral gene resurrection, we show that, long before the hormone evolved, the receptor's affinity for aldosterone was present as a structural by-product of its partnership with chemically similar, more ancient ligands. Introducing two amino acid changes into the ancestral sequence recapitulates the evolution of present-day receptor specificity. Our results indicate that tight interactions can evolve by molecular exploitation—recruitment of an older molecule, previously constrained for a different role, into a new functional complex. link Now what Chubs - a Joe Gallien chin counting contest? Hey dipshit- there isn't anything about blind watchmaker evolution doing it. Not only that it isn't IC- it has only two parts. Thanks for proving how fucking clueless you assholes are. -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2014,13:41    Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 18 2014,15:34) See Joe argue in support of Noah's flood: http://www.skepticink.com/tipplin....e-flood What a moron you are, Kevin. Correcting atheists on an agenda is not supporting. Really who the fuck listens to atheists when it comes to the Bible? Other atheists on the same agenda. Pathetic. Keep humping strawmen -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2014,13:43    Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 18 2014,16:08) Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2014,13:41) Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 18 2014,15:34) See Joe argue in support of Noah's flood: http://www.skepticink.com/tipplin....e-flood Joe: "Nope, I have no interest in the Bible other than it is a collection of old books." but also Joe: "And I only hate atheists who misrepresent the Bible" and "What Bible are you using? And why do all Bible scholars disagree with you? “And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered” (KJV). High hills,not mountains. See also- http://www.answersingenesis.org/....sis....sis.org " and Joe: "And yes a 6,000 year old earth is dumb and it isn't part of the Bible" And also: That whole page is a shrine to his Tard. He's hit the jackpot: Quote Talk to Walter Brown and associates Joe, you do know that's tantamount to saying "i know absolutely fuck all about basic, middle-school-level physics", don't you? John, your position can't even explain physics. So perhaps you should just shut the fuck up. -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2014,13:48    Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 16 2014,09:57) First, Joe, you are wrong. There is significant evidence of macroevolution. Whales, horses, and humans. This evidence comes from both fossils and genetics.  of course, evolution has been used to make predictions about this, that have been confirmed. So, to prevent macroevolution from happening, there must be a barrier that prevents it.  What is the barrier? Let me give you an example. I could win the lottery. It would be very, very, very unlikely. But I could win. There's no barrier in the system that says "Ogre will never win the lottery, even if he bought every single ticket." The evidence is there. YOU must explain why you disagree with all the evidence. What this barrier that you think exists is, how it works, AND a better explanation that fits all the evidence. It's called science. Kevin that is circumstantial evidence that can be used to support other scenarios. Blind watchmaker evolution doesn't make any predictions- it can't even account for metazoans. Genetics is not your friend. There isn't anything in genetics that says we are the sum of our genome. That means you have no idea what has to be changed in order to bring about new body plans requiring new body parts. Blind watchmaker evolution cannot account for transcription factors nor any other regulatory system. No one knows how to test teh claim that certain accumulations of genetic accidents didit. You are nothing but an equivocating and bloviating coward. Grow up. -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2014,13:49    Quote (Driver @ Feb. 17 2014,02:58) Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 16 2014,13:37) Quote (Driver @ Feb. 15 2014,23:56)   Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 16 2014,00:07)     Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 15 2014,18:04)       Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 15 2014,18:00)           Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 15 2014,17:54) Poor Fattytard.  He's ronery again.   :( Hi Timmy you ignorant fuck- Are you still clueless as to who posited blind watchmaker evolution, dumbass? Was it the same Fattytard who calculated the CSI of a cake by counting the letters in the recipe?   :D  :D  :D Only a moron would think that is what happened. And here you are, Timmy. You must be proud to be a dumbass, Timmy. Joe: [A] cake would, at a minimum, contain all the information in the recipe. Of course, in any given language, the meaning of a one bit word can in principle be defined as any string S. For example, let the definition of a new word, "u" (pronounced "caek") be the recipe for Banoffee marshmallow cake here That is, the definition of "u" is the string S where S is "Ingredients 165g butter, plus extra for greasing 165g soft light brown or light brown muscovado sugar 325g self-raising flour..." ...etc... "Method Heat oven to 190C/170C fan/gas 5. Grease and line the bottom of a round 21cm loose-bottomed cake tin..." ...etc. Then the 'Joe CSI' of the cake would be the minimum required to specify the recipe, i.e. one bit represented by the word "u". In practice in a real language, "u" would be defined as a combination of strings, S1, S2, S3 etc, where S1 might be "Ingredients" and S2 might be defined as "the mixture of 165g butter, plus extra for greasing 165g soft light brown or light brown muscovado sugar 325g self-raising flour" and so on. Yet it remains that any recipe can be specified by a one bit word (presuming all valid one bit words haven't already been used), whether the one bit word is defined as the whole recipe or as a combination of parts of the recipe. Any valid string of letters can be the definition of a new one bit word. The limit on the (for want of a better word) compressibility of any string is only the length of the available (unused) valid words in that language. Now, although God is an Englishman - that is, He is at least certainly not French and by no means a woman - there is nothing special about English. We can always define any string in English as a one bit word in a different language, so that the minimum length of cake recipe is one bit. That is, in Caekian, the minimum recipe of our cake is "!" A real world example of this power of language would be the word "asshole" in the somewhat limited language, Gallien. "Asshole" means anything and everything, and as such is the perfect reply to any criticism. Another possible reply in Gallien, to use our new word "u", meaning caek (that particular caek) is "i know u are, but what am i?" Now, when you eat the cake, I have seen it implied that you eat the recipe, or at least part of the recipe. The rest stays with you as waste. English would be well served to add a definition of "waste" as the contents of the blog "Intelligent Reasoning", or any post from that blog. Driver are you proud to be an ignorant ass? Why do you quote-mine? The recipe is a capturing of the ACTIONS. So the ingredients don't matter as far as how much information there is? My point also applies to actions. Define the word "u" as "Mix together X,Y, and Z then bake at 160 degrees for 1 hour". One bit. You can define a one bit word to represent any actions. One bit recipe. Good luck convincing anyone in the real world. When I see recipes being replaced by one letter you will have a point. Until then you are still just an asshole. -------------- "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

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2014,14:04    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 20 2014,11:43) He's hit the jackpot:   Quote Talk to Walter Brown and associates Joe, you do know that's tantamount to saying "i know absolutely fuck all about basic, middle-school-level physics", don't you?[/quote] John, your position can't even explain physics. So perhaps you should just shut the fuck up. I don't need to explain physics, caekboy.  Wally's scenario is impossible unless the physics we have are suspended. Are you going to try and defend your assertions, or have you come here to fling turds again? -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2014,14:21    Wow, look at all the IDiot horseshit.  Someone must have squeezed JoeTard's head again.       -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

didymos Posts: 1828 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2014,14:24    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 20 2014,11:43) John, your position can't even explain physics. Um, why would biological evolution have to explain physics?  Isn't that a job for, I don't know, physics? -------------- I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2014,14:28    Quote (didymos @ Feb. 20 2014,14:24)   Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 20 2014,11:43) John, your position can't even explain physics. Um, why would biological evolution have to explain physics?  Isn't that a job for, I don't know, physics? Joke G is from the Bill O'Reilly school of science. -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

KevinB Posts: 525 Joined: April 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2014,15:21    Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 19 2014,17:50) Quote (Quack @ Feb. 19 2014,14:55) Meaning we need not worry about rising ocean levels; the continents will "hydroplane"? Good news indeed! Only if all the water which flew off to the Kuiper belt, via an otherwise unknown form of orbital mechanics*, comes back. * Brownian motion? A fleet of teapots?

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2014,15:39    Meltdown! Poor Chubs. -------------- "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

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2014,16:30    Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 20 2014,13:39) Meltdown! Poor Chubs. Your position can't explain meltdowns. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2014,16:42    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 20 2014,13:48) Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 16 2014,09:57) First, Joe, you are wrong. There is significant evidence of macroevolution. Whales, horses, and humans. This evidence comes from both fossils and genetics.  of course, evolution has been used to make predictions about this, that have been confirmed. So, to prevent macroevolution from happening, there must be a barrier that prevents it.  What is the barrier? Let me give you an example. I could win the lottery. It would be very, very, very unlikely. But I could win. There's no barrier in the system that says "Ogre will never win the lottery, even if he bought every single ticket." The evidence is there. YOU must explain why you disagree with all the evidence. What this barrier that you think exists is, how it works, AND a better explanation that fits all the evidence. It's called science. Kevin that is circumstantial evidence that can be used to support other scenarios. Blind watchmaker evolution doesn't make any predictions- it can't even account for metazoans. Genetics is not your friend. There isn't anything in genetics that says we are the sum of our genome. That means you have no idea what has to be changed in order to bring about new body plans requiring new body parts. Blind watchmaker evolution cannot account for transcription factors nor any other regulatory system. No one knows how to test teh claim that certain accumulations of genetic accidents didit. You are nothing but an equivocating and bloviating coward. Grow up. You know that's not true. We can change body plans of many species with genetics. As far as forgetting more about ID than I've ever known.  There's no doubt that's true. It's really hard for all the ID proponents to remember all the made up crap that they've claimed to try to support their useless notions.   It's a dang shame you don't keep up on the latest papers Joey... more and more ID claims going down in flames. Science, you see, moves on. Tell me one thing Joey.  Tell us all, one thing, that is different about ID from when it was first talked about a decade ago. And tell us the evidence that was used to make that change. First, of course, you should tell us which version of ID you're talking about. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2014,19:09    Joe: Quote 3 JoeFebruary 20, 2014 at 6:37 pm Who needs facts when we have wikipedia? Wikipedia, changing history with a few keystrokes… Says the emotion and mental child who went back and changed his own blog posts to try and score rhetorical points, but got caught because he isn't very bright. -------------- "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

Driver Posts: 649 Joined: June 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2014,04:28    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 20 2014,19:49) Quote (Driver @ Feb. 17 2014,02:58) Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 16 2014,13:37)   Quote (Driver @ Feb. 15 2014,23:56)   Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 16 2014,00:07)       Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 15 2014,18:04)       Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 15 2014,18:00)           Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 15 2014,17:54) Poor Fattytard.  He's ronery again.   :( Hi Timmy you ignorant fuck- Are you still clueless as to who posited blind watchmaker evolution, dumbass? Was it the same Fattytard who calculated the CSI of a cake by counting the letters in the recipe?   :D  :D  :D Only a moron would think that is what happened. And here you are, Timmy. You must be proud to be a dumbass, Timmy. Joe: [A] cake would, at a minimum, contain all the information in the recipe. Of course, in any given language, the meaning of a one bit word can in principle be defined as any string S. For example, let the definition of a new word, "u" (pronounced "caek") be the recipe for Banoffee marshmallow cake here That is, the definition of "u" is the string S where S is "Ingredients 165g butter, plus extra for greasing 165g soft light brown or light brown muscovado sugar 325g self-raising flour..." ...etc... "Method Heat oven to 190C/170C fan/gas 5. Grease and line the bottom of a round 21cm loose-bottomed cake tin..." ...etc. Then the 'Joe CSI' of the cake would be the minimum required to specify the recipe, i.e. one bit represented by the word "u". In practice in a real language, "u" would be defined as a combination of strings, S1, S2, S3 etc, where S1 might be "Ingredients" and S2 might be defined as "the mixture of 165g butter, plus extra for greasing 165g soft light brown or light brown muscovado sugar 325g self-raising flour" and so on. Yet it remains that any recipe can be specified by a one bit word (presuming all valid one bit words haven't already been used), whether the one bit word is defined as the whole recipe or as a combination of parts of the recipe. Any valid string of letters can be the definition of a new one bit word. The limit on the (for want of a better word) compressibility of any string is only the length of the available (unused) valid words in that language. Now, although God is an Englishman - that is, He is at least certainly not French and by no means a woman - there is nothing special about English. We can always define any string in English as a one bit word in a different language, so that the minimum length of cake recipe is one bit. That is, in Caekian, the minimum recipe of our cake is "!" A real world example of this power of language would be the word "asshole" in the somewhat limited language, Gallien. "Asshole" means anything and everything, and as such is the perfect reply to any criticism. Another possible reply in Gallien, to use our new word "u", meaning caek (that particular caek) is "i know u are, but what am i?" Now, when you eat the cake, I have seen it implied that you eat the recipe, or at least part of the recipe. The rest stays with you as waste. English would be well served to add a definition of "waste" as the contents of the blog "Intelligent Reasoning", or any post from that blog. Driver are you proud to be an ignorant ass? Why do you quote-mine? The recipe is a capturing of the ACTIONS. So the ingredients don't matter as far as how much information there is? My point also applies to actions. Define the word "u" as "Mix together X,Y, and Z then bake at 160 degrees for 1 hour". One bit. You can define a one bit word to represent any actions. One bit recipe. Good luck convincing anyone in the real world. When I see recipes being replaced by one letter you will have a point. Until then you are still just an asshole. Everyone in the real world understands my point. Although in a slightly different form, it is actually the same point as oleg's point about the recipe for a second cake: "Repeat." Please calculate the CSI for caeks of your choice though. Asshole, did you say? I never would have predicted that. -------------- Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray [A]t this time a forum like this one is nothing less than a national security risk. - Gary Gaulin

Driver Posts: 649 Joined: June 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2014,04:41    The hole Joe is digging himself into now is that he is insisting information depends on human language use, which means that information content of any given thing changes throughout history. Presumably there is a ID committee  who convene in a secret parking lot and decide when a language is acceptable to be used in recipes. -------------- Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray [A]t this time a forum like this one is nothing less than a national security risk. - Gary Gaulin

Robin Posts: 1431 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2014,08:38    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 20 2014,13:32) [quote=OgreMkV,Feb. 19 2014,13:29]And I know more about evolution than you do. That has been proven time and again. Remind us again what you do for a living... LOL! -------------- we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2014,09:08    Quote (Driver @ Feb. 21 2014,04:28) Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 20 2014,19:49) Quote (Driver @ Feb. 17 2014,02:58)   Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 16 2014,13:37)   Quote (Driver @ Feb. 15 2014,23:56)     Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 16 2014,00:07)       Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 15 2014,18:04)         Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 15 2014,18:00)             Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 15 2014,17:54) Poor Fattytard.  He's ronery again.   :( Hi Timmy you ignorant fuck- Are you still clueless as to who posited blind watchmaker evolution, dumbass? Was it the same Fattytard who calculated the CSI of a cake by counting the letters in the recipe?   :D  :D  :D Only a moron would think that is what happened. And here you are, Timmy. You must be proud to be a dumbass, Timmy. Joe: [A] cake would, at a minimum, contain all the information in the recipe. Of course, in any given language, the meaning of a one bit word can in principle be defined as any string S. For example, let the definition of a new word, "u" (pronounced "caek") be the recipe for Banoffee marshmallow cake here That is, the definition of "u" is the string S where S is "Ingredients 165g butter, plus extra for greasing 165g soft light brown or light brown muscovado sugar 325g self-raising flour..." ...etc... "Method Heat oven to 190C/170C fan/gas 5. Grease and line the bottom of a round 21cm loose-bottomed cake tin..." ...etc. Then the 'Joe CSI' of the cake would be the minimum required to specify the recipe, i.e. one bit represented by the word "u". In practice in a real language, "u" would be defined as a combination of strings, S1, S2, S3 etc, where S1 might be "Ingredients" and S2 might be defined as "the mixture of 165g butter, plus extra for greasing 165g soft light brown or light brown muscovado sugar 325g self-raising flour" and so on. Yet it remains that any recipe can be specified by a one bit word (presuming all valid one bit words haven't already been used), whether the one bit word is defined as the whole recipe or as a combination of parts of the recipe. Any valid string of letters can be the definition of a new one bit word. The limit on the (for want of a better word) compressibility of any string is only the length of the available (unused) valid words in that language. Now, although God is an Englishman - that is, He is at least certainly not French and by no means a woman - there is nothing special about English. We can always define any string in English as a one bit word in a different language, so that the minimum length of cake recipe is one bit. That is, in Caekian, the minimum recipe of our cake is "!" A real world example of this power of language would be the word "asshole" in the somewhat limited language, Gallien. "Asshole" means anything and everything, and as such is the perfect reply to any criticism. Another possible reply in Gallien, to use our new word "u", meaning caek (that particular caek) is "i know u are, but what am i?" Now, when you eat the cake, I have seen it implied that you eat the recipe, or at least part of the recipe. The rest stays with you as waste. English would be well served to add a definition of "waste" as the contents of the blog "Intelligent Reasoning", or any post from that blog. Driver are you proud to be an ignorant ass? Why do you quote-mine? The recipe is a capturing of the ACTIONS. So the ingredients don't matter as far as how much information there is? My point also applies to actions. Define the word "u" as "Mix together X,Y, and Z then bake at 160 degrees for 1 hour". One bit. You can define a one bit word to represent any actions. One bit recipe. Good luck convincing anyone in the real world. When I see recipes being replaced by one letter you will have a point. Until then you are still just an asshole. Everyone in the real world understands my point. Although in a slightly different form, it is actually the same point as oleg's point about the recipe for a second cake: "Repeat." Please calculate the CSI for caeks of your choice though. Asshole, did you say? I never would have predicted that. One word Joe.... saute It means, heat a skillet to high heat with a small amount of butter or fat, add the ingredient cut into small pieces for fast cooking, cook while stirring or tossing frequently. Have you ever actually cooked anything Joe?  Or is it just frozen pizzas and pop tarts? -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2014,11:08    Joe has a new post up "On humping strawmen". First use of strawman humpage on his blog? Quote At 2:53 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said… "Actually I was trying to stick to ONE thing..." But Kevin didn't. keep humping that strawman! Again we see the intellectual and emotional child copying the grown-ups. -------------- "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

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2014,11:45    Although no-one humps a strawman like Cupcake. Priceless!! -------------- "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

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2014,11:57    Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 20 2014,16:42) Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 20 2014,13:48) Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 16 2014,09:57) First, Joe, you are wrong. There is significant evidence of macroevolution. Whales, horses, and humans. This evidence comes from both fossils and genetics.  of course, evolution has been used to make predictions about this, that have been confirmed. So, to prevent macroevolution from happening, there must be a barrier that prevents it.  What is the barrier? Let me give you an example. I could win the lottery. It would be very, very, very unlikely. But I could win. There's no barrier in the system that says "Ogre will never win the lottery, even if he bought every single ticket." The evidence is there. YOU must explain why you disagree with all the evidence. What this barrier that you think exists is, how it works, AND a better explanation that fits all the evidence. It's called science. Kevin that is circumstantial evidence that can be used to support other scenarios. Blind watchmaker evolution doesn't make any predictions- it can't even account for metazoans. Genetics is not your friend. There isn't anything in genetics that says we are the sum of our genome. That means you have no idea what has to be changed in order to bring about new body plans requiring new body parts. Blind watchmaker evolution cannot account for transcription factors nor any other regulatory system. No one knows how to test teh claim that certain accumulations of genetic accidents didit. You are nothing but an equivocating and bloviating coward. Grow up. You know that's not true. We can change body plans of many species with genetics. As far as forgetting more about ID than I've ever known.  There's no doubt that's true. It's really hard for all the ID proponents to remember all the made up crap that they've claimed to try to support their useless notions.   It's a dang shame you don't keep up on the latest papers Joey... more and more ID claims going down in flames. Science, you see, moves on. Tell me one thing Joey.  Tell us all, one thing, that is different about ID from when it was first talked about a decade ago. And tell us the evidence that was used to make that change. First, of course, you should tell us which version of ID you're talking about. Kevin, nice non-sequitur wrt genetics. Changing body plans by deleting parts by not allowing them to develop, isn't quite what your position requires. And that is all you have. What ID claims are going down in flames Kevin? There still isn't anything in peer-review that supports blind watchmaker evolution. There still isn't even testable hypotheses. -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2014,11:57    Evolutionism posits a somewhat gradual, incremental evolution driven by culled genetic accidents. Natural selection, a process of elimination, is said to be blind, mindless and incorporates heritable random, as in happenstance/ accidental, mutations. Dawkins calls it blind watchmaker evolution. What we need is a way to model what mutations do. That is something beyond the piddly changes we observe. Changes in beak size does not explain the finch. Anti-biotic resistance does not explain bacteria. Moth coloration does not explain the moth. Changes in eye color does not explain the vision system nor the type of eye nor the organism. An albino dwarf with sickle-celled anemia is what we can get when mutations accumulate. Not quite what evolutionism requires. We need to be able to test the hypothesis that changes to genomes can account for the diversity of life starting from the first populations as Darwin saw it- simple prokaryotes. Only then could we determine if natural selection is up to the task. But thanks to the current state of biology being dominated by blind watchmaker evolution, no one has any idea what makes an organism what it is and the evidence is against the “organisms are the sum of their genome”* Quote To understand the challenge to the “superwatch” model by the erosion of the gene-centric view of nature, it is necessary to recall August Weismann’s seminal insight more than a century ago regarding the need for genetic determinants to specify organic form. As Weismann saw so clearly, in order to account for the unerring transmission through time with precise reduplication, for each generation of “complex contingent assemblages of matter” (superwatches), it is necessary to propose the existence of stable abstract genetic blueprints or programs in the genes- he called them “determinants”- sequestered safely in the germ plasm, away from the ever varying and destabilizing influences of the extra-genetic environment. Such carefully isolated determinants would theoretically be capable of reliably transmitting contingent order through time and specifying it reliably each generation. Thus, the modern “gene-centric” view of life was born, and with it the heroic twentieth century effort to identify Weismann’s determinants, supposed to be capable of reliably specifying in precise detail all the contingent order of the phenotype. Weismann was correct in this: the contingent view of form and indeed the entire mechanistic conception of life- the superwatch model- is critically dependent on showing that all or at least the vast majority of organic form is specified in precise detail in the genes. Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the ‘80s and ‘90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find information specifying life’s order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype. The emerging picture made it increasingly difficult to see genes as Weismann’s “unambiguous bearers of information” or view them as the sole source of the durability and stability of organic form. It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it. Only a small fraction of all known genes, such as the developmental fate switching genes, can be imputed to have any sort of directing or controlling influence on form generation. From being “isolated directors” of a one-way game of life, genes are now considered to be interactive players in a dynamic two-way dance of almost unfathomable complexity, as described by Keller in The Century of The Gene- Michael Denton “An Anti-Darwinian Intellectual Journey”, Uncommon Dissent (2004), pages 171-2 See also Why Is A Fly Not A Horse? You would think that answering that question what makes an organism what it is? (with science as opposed to dogmatic declaration) with be paramount to biology. Because without an answer to that question evolutionism is untestable and Dobzhansky is just question begging "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". And that is another reason why Doug Theobald's "29+ evidences for macroevolution" is absent a mechanism and also why it fails-> there aren't any known mechanisms for producing macroevolutionary change because no one even knows what it entails.   * we are just what emerges from the somehow coordinayed interactions of the matter and energy of a fertilized egg (the environemnet wouldn’t change what type of organism comes out) -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2014,12:01    Quote (Driver @ Feb. 21 2014,04:28) Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 20 2014,19:49) Quote (Driver @ Feb. 17 2014,02:58)   Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 16 2014,13:37)   Quote (Driver @ Feb. 15 2014,23:56)     Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 16 2014,00:07)       Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 15 2014,18:04)         Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 15 2014,18:00)             Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 15 2014,17:54) Poor Fattytard.  He's ronery again.   :( Hi Timmy you ignorant fuck- Are you still clueless as to who posited blind watchmaker evolution, dumbass? Was it the same Fattytard who calculated the CSI of a cake by counting the letters in the recipe?   :D  :D  :D Only a moron would think that is what happened. And here you are, Timmy. You must be proud to be a dumbass, Timmy. Joe: [A] cake would, at a minimum, contain all the information in the recipe. Of course, in any given language, the meaning of a one bit word can in principle be defined as any string S. For example, let the definition of a new word, "u" (pronounced "caek") be the recipe for Banoffee marshmallow cake here That is, the definition of "u" is the string S where S is "Ingredients 165g butter, plus extra for greasing 165g soft light brown or light brown muscovado sugar 325g self-raising flour..." ...etc... "Method Heat oven to 190C/170C fan/gas 5. Grease and line the bottom of a round 21cm loose-bottomed cake tin..." ...etc. Then the 'Joe CSI' of the cake would be the minimum required to specify the recipe, i.e. one bit represented by the word "u". In practice in a real language, "u" would be defined as a combination of strings, S1, S2, S3 etc, where S1 might be "Ingredients" and S2 might be defined as "the mixture of 165g butter, plus extra for greasing 165g soft light brown or light brown muscovado sugar 325g self-raising flour" and so on. Yet it remains that any recipe can be specified by a one bit word (presuming all valid one bit words haven't already been used), whether the one bit word is defined as the whole recipe or as a combination of parts of the recipe. Any valid string of letters can be the definition of a new one bit word. The limit on the (for want of a better word) compressibility of any string is only the length of the available (unused) valid words in that language. Now, although God is an Englishman - that is, He is at least certainly not French and by no means a woman - there is nothing special about English. We can always define any string in English as a one bit word in a different language, so that the minimum length of cake recipe is one bit. That is, in Caekian, the minimum recipe of our cake is "!" A real world example of this power of language would be the word "asshole" in the somewhat limited language, Gallien. "Asshole" means anything and everything, and as such is the perfect reply to any criticism. Another possible reply in Gallien, to use our new word "u", meaning caek (that particular caek) is "i know u are, but what am i?" Now, when you eat the cake, I have seen it implied that you eat the recipe, or at least part of the recipe. The rest stays with you as waste. English would be well served to add a definition of "waste" as the contents of the blog "Intelligent Reasoning", or any post from that blog. Driver are you proud to be an ignorant ass? Why do you quote-mine? The recipe is a capturing of the ACTIONS. So the ingredients don't matter as far as how much information there is? My point also applies to actions. Define the word "u" as "Mix together X,Y, and Z then bake at 160 degrees for 1 hour". One bit. You can define a one bit word to represent any actions. One bit recipe. Good luck convincing anyone in the real world. When I see recipes being replaced by one letter you will have a point. Until then you are still just an asshole. Everyone in the real world understands my point. Although in a slightly different form, it is actually the same point as oleg's point about the recipe for a second cake: "Repeat." Please calculate the CSI for caeks of your choice though. Asshole, did you say? I never would have predicted that. Driver, your "point" is to be a moron. You cannot capture the actions just by saying "repeat". I explained that to oleg many times. Also you don't calculate the CSI- you measure the information to see if CSI is present. And as I have been saying for years I would never apply CSI to an object. EvoTARDs kept asking me to show them how to do it so I did. And now all you evoTARDs can do is have evoTARDgasms, as if they refute something I said. -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2014,12:03    Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 21 2014,11:08) Joe has a new post up "On humping strawmen". First use of strawman humpage on his blog? Quote At 2:53 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said… "Actually I was trying to stick to ONE thing..." But Kevin didn't. keep humping that strawman! Again we see the intellectual and emotional child copying the grown-ups. Richie the head case thinks he invented "hump that strawman" You are one deluded fuck, Richie. -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Pages: (919) < ... 236 237 238 239 240 [241] 242 243 244 245 246 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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