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) < ... 278 279 280 281 282 [283] 284 285 286 287 288 ... >

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2015,08:35    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 10 2015,08:12) Kevin tried to make a case that ID was anti-evolution and proved he doesn't understand ID or evolution. You seriously want to bring up how much you got owned in that debate again? Wow, you really do live in your own world don't you? It's very simple... the actual people who are leaders of the ID movement disagree with you. I posted over a dozen statements from those leaders that disagree with your claims. Your problem is with THEM, not me. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

The whole truth Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2015,08:37    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 10 2015,05:54) Quote (Woodbine @ April 01 2012,22:01) It's no secret that Dembski and O'Leary are co-authoring a book on the evils of 'Christian Darwinism'. It will be fun to watch Dembski further marginalise himself from respectable academia but I wonder if they've thought out the broader implications. The tack I assume they are going to take is that the idea that humans arose naturally and contingently is incompatible with God's fall/salvation/redemption project that Christianity espouses. However, if Christianity in their eyes demands the appearance of humans as a deliberate act of crea....design, then so too must the Earth. For surely God is not going to leave his Great Plan at the mercy of natural law; hoping to himself that just the right kind of planet forms? No, just like humanity the Earth must have also been a special creation. So it follows that Dembski and O'Leary are not only explicitly opposing common ancestry, but also the current and increasingly well supported nebula hypotheses of solar and planetary formation! If you can't be a Christian and believe in a natural origin to humankind then you sure as hell can't be a Christian and hold to a naturalistic and contingent account of one of the necessary conditions of our existence - i.e. the Earth. Thus, according to Dembski and O'Leary creationism is the only valid stance for a 'true' Christian. There isn't any evidence for the materialistic position for the formation of the Earth. All that position has is "sheer dumb luck" to explain the earth and solar system. Woodbine must be a moron as Christians say the entire universe was part of the Special Creation. Hey joey the YEC muslim/christian, let's see you make your case that the entire universe exists because it was "part of the Special Creation" by the so-called 'Abrahamic God'. And what, besides "the entire universe", are the other parts of "the Special Creation"? -------------- Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2015,08:42    Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 10 2015,08:24) Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 10 2015,12:37) Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 09 2015,14:33) Joe @UD       Quote Atheists are desperate to imagine humans evolved from some other animal not understanding that if they are right then whatever humans do is totally acceptable. How so? Ask Dawkins, he agrees with me. Wrong again. Nope, Dawkins agrees with me. -------------- "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. 10 2015,08:45    Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 10 2015,08:35) Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 10 2015,08:12) Kevin tried to make a case that ID was anti-evolution and proved he doesn't understand ID or evolution. You seriously want to bring up how much you got owned in that debate again? Wow, you really do live in your own world don't you? It's very simple... the actual people who are leaders of the ID movement disagree with you. I posted over a dozen statements from those leaders that disagree with your claims. Your problem is with THEM, not me. LoL! How did I get owned when you obviously don't have a clue? The leaders of ID agree with me you ignorant ass. I posted their quotes agreeing with me. YOU posted quotes that they disagree with Darwinian evolution. YOU are too stupid to grasp the fact that Darwinian evolution is not the only type of evolution there is. I even posted my case on UD and only Ray Martinez disagreed with me. Every other IDist agrees with me. -------------- "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. 10 2015,08:47    Does ID say that there cannot be a change in allele frequency over time, ie evolution? No. Does ID say that natural selection, ie evolution, doesn't exist? No So in what way is ID anti-evolution? Kevin never says but he can misrepresent ID's leaders and he thinks that means something -------------- "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

The whole truth Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2015,08:52    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 10 2015,06:15)   Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 10 2015,08:13)   Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 10 2015,04:40)     Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 06 2015,12:47)     Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 06 2015,08:56)       Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 06 2015,09:32)       Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 06 2015,07:19) Hey TWiT- I bet you didn't know that I don't wear glasses. You did when that picture was taken. And what difference does it make? Either way you're still a ronery wimpy IDiot. LoL! Yeah wimps always take the most dangerous roads on the planet in an unarmoured SUV. And they also spend months in the Amazon rain forest helping a foreign military. Got it... What a MAN! LMAO More of a man than you will ever be. So you're on your way to Portland? When are you going to arrive? I was already there and could not find a listing for the most ignorant coward in Portland. -------------- Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2015,08:53    As Dembski/ Wells said Intelligent design only has an issue with materialistic evolution-   Quote the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms. (Also known as the blind watchmaker thesis) Intelligent Design is OK with all individuals in a population generally having the same number and types of genes and that those genes give rise to an array of traits and characteristics that characterize that population. It is OK with mutations that may result in two or more slightly different molecular forms of a gene- alleles- that influence a trait in different ways and that individuals of a population vary in the details of a trait when they inherit different combinations of alleles. ID is OK with any allele that may become more or less common in the population relative to other kinds at a gene locus, or it may disappear. And ID is OK with allele frequencies changing as a result of mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, natural and artificial selection, that mutation alone produces new alleles and gene flow, genetic drift, natural and artificial selection shuffle existing alleles into, through, or out of populations. IOW ID is OK with biological evolution. As Dr Behe et al., make very clear, it just argues about the mechanisms- basically design/ telic vs spontaneous/ stochastic. Now we are left with the only way Intelligent Design can be considered anti-evolution is if and only if the only definition of evolution matches the definition provided for materialistic evolution. However I cannot find any source that states that is the case. So the bottom line is Intelligent Design says “evolved, sure”. The questions are “evolved from what?” and “how did it evolve?”. -------------- "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. 10 2015,08:53    Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 10 2015,08:52) Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 10 2015,06:15)   Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 10 2015,08:13)     Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 10 2015,04:40)     Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 06 2015,12:47)       Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 06 2015,08:56)       Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 06 2015,09:32)         Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 06 2015,07:19) Hey TWiT- I bet you didn't know that I don't wear glasses. You did when that picture was taken. And what difference does it make? Either way you're still a ronery wimpy IDiot. LoL! Yeah wimps always take the most dangerous roads on the planet in an unarmoured SUV. And they also spend months in the Amazon rain forest helping a foreign military. Got it... What a MAN! LMAO More of a man than you will ever be. So you're on your way to Portland? When are you going to arrive? I was already there and could not find a listing for the most ignorant coward in Portland. Typical cowardly TWiT the baby molester -------------- "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. 10 2015,08:55    Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 10 2015,08:24) Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 10 2015,12:37) Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 09 2015,14:33) Joe @UD       Quote Atheists are desperate to imagine humans evolved from some other animal not understanding that if they are right then whatever humans do is totally acceptable. How so? Ask Dawkins, he agrees with me. Wrong again. Richard Dawkins on a Darwinian society -------------- "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

The whole truth Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2015,09:20    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 10 2015,05:39) Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 06 2015,12:13) I'm sorry Joe, but you are (as usual) being unfair. We are required to precisely say every minute detail of anything we talk about. If we don't, then you feel free to make up stuff about what we said. However, you don't hold yourself to the same level of detail and refuse to talk about anything more than vague responses... at some point later, you will then deny having said due to some minor point (like a semicolon instead of a comma). This is little more than purposefully misleading. Some would call it outright lying, but I know how sensitive you are and would never do that to you. If you don't want to talk about the science, then fine. Make up whatever crap helps you sleep at night.  Whatever helps you believe you won a discussion. Anyone (even your fellow IDers) can see you have no idea what's going on. As a point of fact, whenever people are talking about human caused climate change... one assumes that we're talking about the period that humans could actually cause climate change. I know you don't care about that, because you have this strange delusion that reality doesn't exist. That CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. That plants would be infinitely better with infinite CO2. That "warm is good", ignoring ocean acidification, ice sheet collapse, increase in extreme weather, and all the other issues you don't get because you have no idea what's really going on. Whatever.  We'll just have to muddle through without your opinion. Because, honestly, even if you were right, you are such a truly horrid person, that no one would listen to you anyway. LoL! You made a false statement and got called on it. You are a coward, Kevin. I never said that CO2 was not a greenhouse gas. You are a little lying punk. I never said the world would be better with infinite CO2, again you are a just a little lying faggot. Science has said the climate change will not bring about extreme weather and we have seen extreme weather events in the past. The dust bowl of the 1930s, for example. Strange that hurricane season has been whimpering down lately. Loser. Ice sheets? How do you know they are supposed to exist in the first place? Talk about science? Sure, but you have no idea what science entails. "Science has said the climate change will not bring about extreme weather..." Really? I've heard scientists say that climate change will cause more extreme weather. "...and we have seen extreme weather events in the past." So? No scientist that I know of has ever said that there were never extreme weather events in the past. "The dust bowl of the 1930s, for example." Hey joey, what (or who) caused the Dust Bowl? "Strange that hurricane season has been whimpering down lately. Loser." You think small, joey, extremely small. "Ice sheets? How do you know they are supposed to exist in the first place?" Supposed to exist? Huh? What? "Talk about science? Sure, but you have no idea what science entails." So, joey the YEC muslim/christian IDiot, what does science entail? -------------- Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2015,09:31    Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 10 2015,09:20) Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 10 2015,05:39)   Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 06 2015,12:13) I'm sorry Joe, but you are (as usual) being unfair. We are required to precisely say every minute detail of anything we talk about. If we don't, then you feel free to make up stuff about what we said. However, you don't hold yourself to the same level of detail and refuse to talk about anything more than vague responses... at some point later, you will then deny having said due to some minor point (like a semicolon instead of a comma). This is little more than purposefully misleading. Some would call it outright lying, but I know how sensitive you are and would never do that to you. If you don't want to talk about the science, then fine. Make up whatever crap helps you sleep at night.  Whatever helps you believe you won a discussion. Anyone (even your fellow IDers) can see you have no idea what's going on. As a point of fact, whenever people are talking about human caused climate change... one assumes that we're talking about the period that humans could actually cause climate change. I know you don't care about that, because you have this strange delusion that reality doesn't exist. That CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. That plants would be infinitely better with infinite CO2. That "warm is good", ignoring ocean acidification, ice sheet collapse, increase in extreme weather, and all the other issues you don't get because you have no idea what's really going on. Whatever.  We'll just have to muddle through without your opinion. Because, honestly, even if you were right, you are such a truly horrid person, that no one would listen to you anyway. LoL! You made a false statement and got called on it. You are a coward, Kevin. I never said that CO2 was not a greenhouse gas. You are a little lying punk. I never said the world would be better with infinite CO2, again you are a just a little lying faggot. Science has said the climate change will not bring about extreme weather and we have seen extreme weather events in the past. The dust bowl of the 1930s, for example. Strange that hurricane season has been whimpering down lately. Loser. Ice sheets? How do you know they are supposed to exist in the first place? Talk about science? Sure, but you have no idea what science entails. "Science has said the climate change will not bring about extreme weather..." Really? I've heard scientists say that climate change will cause more extreme weather. "...and we have seen extreme weather events in the past." So? No scientist that I know of has ever said that there were never extreme weather events in the past. "The dust bowl of the 1930s, for example." Hey joey, what (or who) caused the Dust Bowl? "Strange that hurricane season has been whimpering down lately. Loser." You think small, joey, extremely small. "Ice sheets? How do you know they are supposed to exist in the first place?" Supposed to exist? Huh? What? "Talk about science? Sure, but you have no idea what science entails." So, joey the YEC muslim/christian IDiot, what does science entail? LoL! We do not see more extreme weather you ignorant fuck. That means your "scientists" are wrong. -------------- "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

The whole truth Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2015,09:36    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 10 2015,06:53) As Dembski/ Wells said Intelligent design only has an issue with materialistic evolution-   Quote the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms. (Also known as the blind watchmaker thesis) Intelligent Design is OK with all individuals in a population generally having the same number and types of genes and that those genes give rise to an array of traits and characteristics that characterize that population. It is OK with mutations that may result in two or more slightly different molecular forms of a gene- alleles- that influence a trait in different ways and that individuals of a population vary in the details of a trait when they inherit different combinations of alleles. ID is OK with any allele that may become more or less common in the population relative to other kinds at a gene locus, or it may disappear. And ID is OK with allele frequencies changing as a result of mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, natural and artificial selection, that mutation alone produces new alleles and gene flow, genetic drift, natural and artificial selection shuffle existing alleles into, through, or out of populations. IOW ID is OK with biological evolution. As Dr Behe et al., make very clear, it just argues about the mechanisms- basically design/ telic vs spontaneous/ stochastic. Now we are left with the only way Intelligent Design can be considered anti-evolution is if and only if the only definition of evolution matches the definition provided for materialistic evolution. However I cannot find any source that states that is the case. So the bottom line is Intelligent Design says “evolved, sure”. The questions are “evolved from what?” and “how did it evolve?”. Translation: ID is OK with blah blah blah allah-yhwh-did-it blah blah blah allah-yhwh-did-it blah blah blah allah-yhwh-did-it blah blah blah blah blah. -------------- Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2015,09:36    Yes indeed NOAA Report Destroys Link from GW to Extreme Weather -------------- "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. 10 2015,09:37    Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 10 2015,09:36) Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 10 2015,06:53) As Dembski/ Wells said Intelligent design only has an issue with materialistic evolution-     Quote the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms. (Also known as the blind watchmaker thesis) Intelligent Design is OK with all individuals in a population generally having the same number and types of genes and that those genes give rise to an array of traits and characteristics that characterize that population. It is OK with mutations that may result in two or more slightly different molecular forms of a gene- alleles- that influence a trait in different ways and that individuals of a population vary in the details of a trait when they inherit different combinations of alleles. ID is OK with any allele that may become more or less common in the population relative to other kinds at a gene locus, or it may disappear. And ID is OK with allele frequencies changing as a result of mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, natural and artificial selection, that mutation alone produces new alleles and gene flow, genetic drift, natural and artificial selection shuffle existing alleles into, through, or out of populations. IOW ID is OK with biological evolution. As Dr Behe et al., make very clear, it just argues about the mechanisms- basically design/ telic vs spontaneous/ stochastic. Now we are left with the only way Intelligent Design can be considered anti-evolution is if and only if the only definition of evolution matches the definition provided for materialistic evolution. However I cannot find any source that states that is the case. So the bottom line is Intelligent Design says “evolved, sure”. The questions are “evolved from what?” and “how did it evolve?”. Translation: ID is OK with blah blah blah allah-yhwh-did-it blah blah blah allah-yhwh-did-it blah blah blah allah-yhwh-did-it blah blah blah blah blah. LoL! Translation- TWiT is a willfully ignorant asswipe and very proud of it. -------------- "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

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2015,09:55    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 10 2015,08:53) As Dembski/ Wells said Intelligent design only has an issue with materialistic evolution-   Quote the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms. (Also known as the blind watchmaker thesis) Intelligent Design is OK with all individuals in a population generally having the same number and types of genes and that those genes give rise to an array of traits and characteristics that characterize that population. It is OK with mutations that may result in two or more slightly different molecular forms of a gene- alleles- that influence a trait in different ways and that individuals of a population vary in the details of a trait when they inherit different combinations of alleles. ID is OK with any allele that may become more or less common in the population relative to other kinds at a gene locus, or it may disappear. And ID is OK with allele frequencies changing as a result of mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, natural and artificial selection, that mutation alone produces new alleles and gene flow, genetic drift, natural and artificial selection shuffle existing alleles into, through, or out of populations. IOW ID is OK with biological evolution. As Dr Behe et al., make very clear, it just argues about the mechanisms- basically design/ telic vs spontaneous/ stochastic. Now we are left with the only way Intelligent Design can be considered anti-evolution is if and only if the only definition of evolution matches the definition provided for materialistic evolution. However I cannot find any source that states that is the case. So the bottom line is Intelligent Design says “evolved, sure”. The questions are “evolved from what?” and “how did it evolve?”. So, we FINALLY get an understanding of your blind watchmaker evolution idea. Why don't you just call it materialistic evolution? Since you don't agree with the MATERIALISTIC part of evolution and agree with all other parts of evolution, the ONLY determining factor would be a designer. Which means that, unlike what ID claims, the only thing that will help ID become reality is having a designer. So who/what is the designer and what's the evidence for it (hint, using ID as evidence for a D is circular logic, so don't do that OK)? Thanks for another own goal Joey. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2015,10:02    Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 10 2015,09:55) Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 10 2015,08:53) As Dembski/ Wells said Intelligent design only has an issue with materialistic evolution-     Quote the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms. (Also known as the blind watchmaker thesis) Intelligent Design is OK with all individuals in a population generally having the same number and types of genes and that those genes give rise to an array of traits and characteristics that characterize that population. It is OK with mutations that may result in two or more slightly different molecular forms of a gene- alleles- that influence a trait in different ways and that individuals of a population vary in the details of a trait when they inherit different combinations of alleles. ID is OK with any allele that may become more or less common in the population relative to other kinds at a gene locus, or it may disappear. And ID is OK with allele frequencies changing as a result of mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, natural and artificial selection, that mutation alone produces new alleles and gene flow, genetic drift, natural and artificial selection shuffle existing alleles into, through, or out of populations. IOW ID is OK with biological evolution. As Dr Behe et al., make very clear, it just argues about the mechanisms- basically design/ telic vs spontaneous/ stochastic. Now we are left with the only way Intelligent Design can be considered anti-evolution is if and only if the only definition of evolution matches the definition provided for materialistic evolution. However I cannot find any source that states that is the case. So the bottom line is Intelligent Design says “evolved, sure”. The questions are “evolved from what?” and “how did it evolve?”. So, we FINALLY get an understanding of your blind watchmaker evolution idea. Why don't you just call it materialistic evolution? Since you don't agree with the MATERIALISTIC part of evolution and agree with all other parts of evolution, the ONLY determining factor would be a designer. Which means that, unlike what ID claims, the only thing that will help ID become reality is having a designer. So who/what is the designer and what's the evidence for it (hint, using ID as evidence for a D is circular logic, so don't do that OK)? Thanks for another own goal Joey. LoL! It isn't "my" blind watchmaker evolution idea. That is what the modern synthesis posits. Dawkins called it the blind watchmaker thesis so take it up with him. Also the evidence for an Intelligent Designer is the Intelligent Design. But thanks for admitting you choked when you spewed that ID is anti-evolution. -------------- "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. 10 2015,10:08    Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 10 2015,09:55) Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 10 2015,08:53) As Dembski/ Wells said Intelligent design only has an issue with materialistic evolution-     Quote the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms. (Also known as the blind watchmaker thesis) Intelligent Design is OK with all individuals in a population generally having the same number and types of genes and that those genes give rise to an array of traits and characteristics that characterize that population. It is OK with mutations that may result in two or more slightly different molecular forms of a gene- alleles- that influence a trait in different ways and that individuals of a population vary in the details of a trait when they inherit different combinations of alleles. ID is OK with any allele that may become more or less common in the population relative to other kinds at a gene locus, or it may disappear. And ID is OK with allele frequencies changing as a result of mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, natural and artificial selection, that mutation alone produces new alleles and gene flow, genetic drift, natural and artificial selection shuffle existing alleles into, through, or out of populations. IOW ID is OK with biological evolution. As Dr Behe et al., make very clear, it just argues about the mechanisms- basically design/ telic vs spontaneous/ stochastic. Now we are left with the only way Intelligent Design can be considered anti-evolution is if and only if the only definition of evolution matches the definition provided for materialistic evolution. However I cannot find any source that states that is the case. So the bottom line is Intelligent Design says “evolved, sure”. The questions are “evolved from what?” and “how did it evolve?”. So, we FINALLY get an understanding of your blind watchmaker evolution idea. Why don't you just call it materialistic evolution? Since you don't agree with the MATERIALISTIC part of evolution and agree with all other parts of evolution, the ONLY determining factor would be a designer. Which means that, unlike what ID claims, the only thing that will help ID become reality is having a designer. So who/what is the designer and what's the evidence for it (hint, using ID as evidence for a D is circular logic, so don't do that OK)? Thanks for another own goal Joey. And more evidence that Kevin is an ignorant asshole- I posted all of that in my opening post of our debate and Kevin says today that he Finally gets an understanding of "my" blind watchmaker idea. April of 2011, Kevin. You are only 3+ years behind... -------------- "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

The whole truth Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2015,10:13    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 10 2015,07:31) Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 10 2015,09:20)   Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 10 2015,05:39)     Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 06 2015,12:13) I'm sorry Joe, but you are (as usual) being unfair. We are required to precisely say every minute detail of anything we talk about. If we don't, then you feel free to make up stuff about what we said. However, you don't hold yourself to the same level of detail and refuse to talk about anything more than vague responses... at some point later, you will then deny having said due to some minor point (like a semicolon instead of a comma). This is little more than purposefully misleading. Some would call it outright lying, but I know how sensitive you are and would never do that to you. If you don't want to talk about the science, then fine. Make up whatever crap helps you sleep at night.  Whatever helps you believe you won a discussion. Anyone (even your fellow IDers) can see you have no idea what's going on. As a point of fact, whenever people are talking about human caused climate change... one assumes that we're talking about the period that humans could actually cause climate change. I know you don't care about that, because you have this strange delusion that reality doesn't exist. That CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. That plants would be infinitely better with infinite CO2. That "warm is good", ignoring ocean acidification, ice sheet collapse, increase in extreme weather, and all the other issues you don't get because you have no idea what's really going on. Whatever.  We'll just have to muddle through without your opinion. Because, honestly, even if you were right, you are such a truly horrid person, that no one would listen to you anyway. LoL! You made a false statement and got called on it. You are a coward, Kevin. I never said that CO2 was not a greenhouse gas. You are a little lying punk. I never said the world would be better with infinite CO2, again you are a just a little lying faggot. Science has said the climate change will not bring about extreme weather and we have seen extreme weather events in the past. The dust bowl of the 1930s, for example. Strange that hurricane season has been whimpering down lately. Loser. Ice sheets? How do you know they are supposed to exist in the first place? Talk about science? Sure, but you have no idea what science entails. "Science has said the climate change will not bring about extreme weather..." Really? I've heard scientists say that climate change will cause more extreme weather. "...and we have seen extreme weather events in the past." So? No scientist that I know of has ever said that there were never extreme weather events in the past. "The dust bowl of the 1930s, for example." Hey joey, what (or who) caused the Dust Bowl? "Strange that hurricane season has been whimpering down lately. Loser." You think small, joey, extremely small. "Ice sheets? How do you know they are supposed to exist in the first place?" Supposed to exist? Huh? What? "Talk about science? Sure, but you have no idea what science entails." So, joey the YEC muslim/christian IDiot, what does science entail? LoL! We do not see more extreme weather you ignorant fuck. That means your "scientists" are wrong. Ah, so no new temperature records (highs or lows) have recently occurred, no unusual melting of ice sheets or glaciers has recently occurred, no unusual sea level increases have recently occurred, and no unusual snowfall, rainfall, droughts, storms, or any other unusual climate related phenomena have recently occurred? No life forms, including humans, have been or are being adversely affected by recent rapid climate change? And none of that will continue to occur, especially due to rapid anthropogenic climate change? And if rapid climate change is occurring and continues to occur, it's just allah-yhwh rapidly adjusting the world to the way it's 'supposed' to be, right? Oh wait, rapid climate change that's occurring now was 'front-loaded' at the moment of "Special Creation", and allah-yhwh doesn't have to manually adjust anything, right? And joey, just in case you're planning to bring the Mid-Pliocene and Miocene into it, by "recently" I mean recently. Edited by The whole truth on Feb. 10 2015,08:21 -------------- Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2015,10:15    Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 10 2015,10:13) Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 10 2015,07:31) Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 10 2015,09:20)   Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 10 2015,05:39)     Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 06 2015,12:13) I'm sorry Joe, but you are (as usual) being unfair. We are required to precisely say every minute detail of anything we talk about. If we don't, then you feel free to make up stuff about what we said. However, you don't hold yourself to the same level of detail and refuse to talk about anything more than vague responses... at some point later, you will then deny having said due to some minor point (like a semicolon instead of a comma). This is little more than purposefully misleading. Some would call it outright lying, but I know how sensitive you are and would never do that to you. If you don't want to talk about the science, then fine. Make up whatever crap helps you sleep at night.  Whatever helps you believe you won a discussion. Anyone (even your fellow IDers) can see you have no idea what's going on. As a point of fact, whenever people are talking about human caused climate change... one assumes that we're talking about the period that humans could actually cause climate change. I know you don't care about that, because you have this strange delusion that reality doesn't exist. That CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. That plants would be infinitely better with infinite CO2. That "warm is good", ignoring ocean acidification, ice sheet collapse, increase in extreme weather, and all the other issues you don't get because you have no idea what's really going on. Whatever.  We'll just have to muddle through without your opinion. Because, honestly, even if you were right, you are such a truly horrid person, that no one would listen to you anyway. LoL! You made a false statement and got called on it. You are a coward, Kevin. I never said that CO2 was not a greenhouse gas. You are a little lying punk. I never said the world would be better with infinite CO2, again you are a just a little lying faggot. Science has said the climate change will not bring about extreme weather and we have seen extreme weather events in the past. The dust bowl of the 1930s, for example. Strange that hurricane season has been whimpering down lately. Loser. Ice sheets? How do you know they are supposed to exist in the first place? Talk about science? Sure, but you have no idea what science entails. "Science has said the climate change will not bring about extreme weather..." Really? I've heard scientists say that climate change will cause more extreme weather. "...and we have seen extreme weather events in the past." So? No scientist that I know of has ever said that there were never extreme weather events in the past. "The dust bowl of the 1930s, for example." Hey joey, what (or who) caused the Dust Bowl? "Strange that hurricane season has been whimpering down lately. Loser." You think small, joey, extremely small. "Ice sheets? How do you know they are supposed to exist in the first place?" Supposed to exist? Huh? What? "Talk about science? Sure, but you have no idea what science entails." So, joey the YEC muslim/christian IDiot, what does science entail? LoL! We do not see more extreme weather you ignorant fuck. That means your "scientists" are wrong. Ah, so no new temperature records (highs or lows) have recently occurred, no unusual melting of ice sheets or glaciers has recently occurred, no unusual sea level increases have recently occurred, no unusual snowfall, rainfall, droughts, storms, or any other unusual climate related phenomena have recently occurred? No life forms, including humans, have been or are being adversely affected by recent rapid climate change? And none of that will continue to occur, especially due to rapid anthropogenic climate change? And if rapid climate change is occurring and continues to occur, it's just allah-yhwh rapidly adjusting the world to the way it's 'supposed' to be, right? Oh wait, rapid climate change that's occurring now was 'front-loaded' at the moment of "Special Creation", and allah-yhwh doesn't have to manually adjust anything, right? And joey, just in case you're planning to bring the Mid-Pliocene and Miocene into it, by "recently" I mean recently. NOAA Reprort Destroys Global Warming Link to Extreme Weather Eat it you 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

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2015,10:22    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 10 2015,10:08) So, we FINALLY get an understanding of your blind watchmaker evolution idea. Why don't you just call it materialistic evolution? Since you don't agree with the MATERIALISTIC part of evolution and agree with all other parts of evolution, the ONLY determining factor would be a designer. Which means that, unlike what ID claims, the only thing that will help ID become reality is having a designer. So who/what is the designer and what's the evidence for it (hint, using ID as evidence for a D is circular logic, so don't do that OK)? Thanks for another own goal Joey.[/quote] And more evidence that Kevin is an ignorant asshole- I posted all of that in my opening post of our debate and Kevin says today that he Finally gets an understanding of "my" blind watchmaker idea. April of 2011, Kevin. You are only 3+ years behind... Meh... so all those times I asked, instead of being an asshole, you could have just said "here's the link" and quoted it. But no, you had to wait. The evidence for design is NOT evidence for a designer. Why? Because the evidence for design and the evidence for evolution are EXACTLY THE SAME. That's what you clowns don't get. You absolutely must accept all the aspects of evolution because there is so much evidence in support. So you say that ID is not anti-evolution, ID is theistic evolution then. But there's no evidence of a designer that isn't related to the "design", which you haven't shown to be any different from what's expected in evolution. Circular logic. What's the evidence for the designer? The design? How do we know it's designed? Because only the designer can do it? Who's the designer? We don't talk about that. So what's the evidence for the designer? -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2015,10:28    There's the gpuccio gambit. If it's really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really complicated, it's intelligently selected. Because only an intelligent entity can know how a protein coding sequence is going to fold, and how the fold will impact reproductive success. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2015,10:29    Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 10 2015,10:22) Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 10 2015,10:08) So, we FINALLY get an understanding of your blind watchmaker evolution idea. Why don't you just call it materialistic evolution? Since you don't agree with the MATERIALISTIC part of evolution and agree with all other parts of evolution, the ONLY determining factor would be a designer. Which means that, unlike what ID claims, the only thing that will help ID become reality is having a designer. So who/what is the designer and what's the evidence for it (hint, using ID as evidence for a D is circular logic, so don't do that OK)? Thanks for another own goal Joey. And more evidence that Kevin is an ignorant asshole- I posted all of that in my opening post of our debate and Kevin says today that he Finally gets an understanding of "my" blind watchmaker idea. April of 2011, Kevin. You are only 3+ years behind...[/quote] Meh... so all those times I asked, instead of being an asshole, you could have just said "here's the link" and quoted it. But no, you had to wait. The evidence for design is NOT evidence for a designer. Why? Because the evidence for design and the evidence for evolution are EXACTLY THE SAME. That's what you clowns don't get. You absolutely must accept all the aspects of evolution because there is so much evidence in support. So you say that ID is not anti-evolution, ID is theistic evolution then. But there's no evidence of a designer that isn't related to the "design", which you haven't shown to be any different from what's expected in evolution. Circular logic. What's the evidence for the designer? The design? How do we know it's designed? Because only the designer can do it? Who's the designer? We don't talk about that. So what's the evidence for the designer? LoL! Your ignorance while amusing just proves you are ignorant. If you had some evidence that unguided evolution was up to the task ID would be dead. You have nothing. Yours isn't even a theory. It doesn't produce any testable hypotheses. There isn't anything "expected" from unguided evolution. You are just an ignorant equivocator. BTW ID is NOT theistic evolution. Your ignorance knows no bounds. Tell us Kevin, do we need to know the intelligent designer BEFORE determining intelligent design is present? Or does that always come after we determine ID is present? -------------- "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. 10 2015,10:30    Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 10 2015,10:28) There's the gpuccio gambit. If it's really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really complicated, it's intelligently selected. Because only an intelligent entity can know how a protein coding sequence is going to fold, and how the fold will impact reproductive success. LoL! Your position cannot explain reproduction. Also ID doesn't care about mere complexity and your position still has nothing. -------------- "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

Soapy Sam Posts: 659 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2015,10:32    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 10 2015,14:55) Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 10 2015,08:24)   Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 10 2015,12:37)   Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 09 2015,14:33) Joe @UD         Quote Atheists are desperate to imagine humans evolved from some other animal not understanding that if they are right then whatever humans do is totally acceptable. How so? Ask Dawkins, he agrees with me. Wrong again. Richard Dawkins on a Darwinian society And that's Dawkins saying that whatever humans do is totally acceptable? Riiiiight. -------------- SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2015,10:33    Intelligent design evolution is exemplified by genetic and evolutionary algorithms which are designed to solve specific problems. They are goal-oriented targeted searches, which is an intelligent design mechanism. -------------- "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. 10 2015,10:34    Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 10 2015,10:32) Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 10 2015,14:55)   Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 10 2015,08:24)   Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 10 2015,12:37)     Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 09 2015,14:33) Joe @UD         Quote Atheists are desperate to imagine humans evolved from some other animal not understanding that if they are right then whatever humans do is totally acceptable. How so? Ask Dawkins, he agrees with me. Wrong again. Richard Dawkins on a Darwinian society And that's Dawkins saying that whatever humans do is totally acceptable? Riiiiight. So you are admitting that you are an ignorant asshole. Right -------------- "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. 10 2015,10:36    Quote The evidence for design is NOT evidence for a designer. Why? Because the evidence for design and the evidence for evolution are EXACTLY THE SAME. Nope. There isn't any evidence for unguided evolution producing anything but disease and deformities. Obviously you have no idea what evidence is. -------------- "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. 10 2015,10:51    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 10 2015,07:33) Quote The goals of scientists like Linnaeus and Cuvier- to organize the chaos of life’s diversity- are much easier to achieve if each species has a Platonic essence that distinguishes it from all others, in the same way that the absence of legs and eyelids is essential to snakes and distinguishes it from other reptiles. In this Platonic worldview, the task of naturalists is to find the essence of each species. Actually, that understates the case: In an essentialist world, the essence really is the species. Contrast this with an ever-changing evolving world, where species incessantly spew forth new species that can blend with each other. The snake Eupodophis from the late Cretaceous period, which had rudimentary legs, and the glass lizard, which is alive today and lacks legs, are just two of many witnesses  to the blurry boundaries of species. Evolution’s messy world is anathema to the clear, pristine order essentialism craves. It is thus no accident that Plato and his essentialism became the “great antihero of evolutionism,” as the twentieth century zoologist Ernst Mayr called it.- Andreas Wagner, “Arrival of the Fittest”, pages 9-10 That should end the objective nested hierarchy debate (in my favor, no less) but I am sue the evoTARDs will find some nonsensical objection. Hey Kevin, that bit from the "Arrival of the Fittest" gores your heroes Jonny-boy Pearce and his butty Andy Schueler. Sweet -------------- "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

Acartia_Bogart Posts: 2927 Joined: Sep. 2014 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2015,10:52    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 10 2015,06:36) Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Feb. 06 2015,13:29) Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 06 2015,10:58)   Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Feb. 06 2015,10:49) Hi Joe. When are you going to publish your proof that Cantor was wrong about set theory? I am sure that we are all looking forward to it. Will it be a companion piece to your published proof that frequency = wavelength? Show me a frequency that has more than one wavelength. Show me a wavelength that has more than one frequency. Cantor was ignorant about relativity and basic set subtraction proves there is a difference between countably infinite sets. Don't blame me because you are too dim to grasp that. Joe. You made a statement several weeks ago that wavelength equals frequency, a self-evidently incorrect statement. Everyone, including myself, makes these types of innocent misstatements on occasion but a sane and rational person would admit that they were mistaken when it is pointed out to them. Would you like to tell the good people here how you reacted to this? (no need to answer this question. It is rhetorical). As well, in-between calling Jerrad every abusive name in the book on your blog, you claimed that you have proven that Cantor is wrong. All I asked was when you planned to publish this proof. Let me rephrase that so that even you can understand it. It will only require a one word answer. Are you planning to publish your proof that Cantor was wrong? As Gordon (KairosFocus) Mullings would say, your answer will be very telling. OK so you can't show us a frequency that has more than one wavelength. Do you have any evidence that what I said is incorrect? Can you even try to make a case to that effect? Do you have any evidence that what I said is incorrect? Please solve for X, where X = frequency: 2 meters = X Please show your math.

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2015,10:56    So you cannot do as I ask and you cannot make your case. Got it -------------- "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) < ... 278 279 280 281 282 [283] 284 285 286 287 288 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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