Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Thursday, December 21, 2006

"Sheer-Dumb-Luck"- strawman or anti-ID materialistic reality?

I have been using the phrase "sheer-dumb-luck" to describe the materialistic anti-ID position. I have also been accused by some who say that is a strawman. So here is their chance to demonstrate that "sheer-dumb-luck" is a strawman when discussing the materialistic anti-ID position.

Please keep the following in mind:

"Chance alone," the Nobel Prize-winning chemist Jacques Monod once wrote, "is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of creation."


IOW Monod substantiates my claim. Let us see what the nay-sayers have to offer to substantiate their claim.

Just to be clear this extends to the rules of physics/ the laws that govern nature. IOW it extends beyond biology because ID extends beyond biology

posted by Joe G @ 7:19 AM  

46 Comments:

  • At 12:23 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    This is interesting. I'm assuming you'd like to hear Zachriel's answer to this challenge. Of course, you won't let him post to this thread so that's a bummer.

    And you won't let me post either, and no one else really cares to post here so I guess no one has an answer for you--you're so smart.

     

  • At 1:43 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    This is interesting.

    Yes it is. And it is becoming more so.

    blipey:
    I'm assuming you'd like to hear Zachriel's answer to this challenge.

    You assume incorrectly.

    blipey:
    Of course, you won't let him post to this thread so that's a bummer.

    Of course that is a lie. Why would you lie?

    The key to Zachriel's posting privilige is in his hands (or where-ever he decided to put it).

    blipey:
    And you won't let me post either,

    All evidence to the contrary, of course.

    blipey:
    and no one else really cares to post here so I guess no one has an answer for you

    No one has an answer for me so no one will post here. Yeah, that's the ticket.

    blipey:
    you're so smart.

    Yes I am but that has nothing to do with what Monod said- oh and that you agreed with- pertaining to the sheer-dumb-luck position that is the materialistic alternative to ID.


    Something else for you to ponder:

    Can natural processes account for the origin of nature if natural processes only exist in nature?

    And what about those laws that govern nature? They "just are"?

     

  • At 2:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Actually, in response to blipey, you don't have to be smart to understand these concepts, you only have to be rational.

    As to no one else posting here, well .... greetings blipey.

    Hey, joe_g, if you would like to take a look at my blog (which deals with similar ideas) and provide me with a bit of constructive and/or negative criticism, that would be much appreciated.

     

  • At 5:57 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I will take this moment to state that "sheer-dumb-luck" extends beyond any theory of evolution. It goes all the way the the alleged "big-bang".

    As David Berlinski told us:

    "If the universe is for reasons of sheer dumb luck committed ultimately to a state of cosmic listlessness, it is also by sheer dumb luck that life first emerged on earth, the chemicals in the pre-biotic seas or soup illuminated and then invigorated by a fateful flash of lightning. It is again by sheer dumb luck that the first self-reproducing systems were created. The dense and ropy chains of RNA--they were created by sheer dumb luck, and sheer dumb luck drove the primitive chemicals of life to form a living cell. It is sheer dumb luck that alters the genetic message so that, from infernal nonsense, meaning for a moment emerges; and sheer dumb luck again that endows life with its opportunities, the space of possibilities over which natural selection plays, sheer dumb luck creating the mammalian eye and the marsupial pouch, sheer dumb luck again endowing the elephant's sensitive nose with nerves and the orchid's translucent petal with blush.

    Amazing. Sheer dumb luck."

    However I would love to hear of a materialistic alternative to ID that is not sheer-dumb-luck.

    (fixed typo in original)

     

  • At 6:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To CJYman,

    Nice blog. I was once told to try to keep the main blog entry as short as possible. But then again I always thought that all depends on what you have to say.

    I do not share your religious views, but I do share your desire to know the reality to our existence:

    “A healthy science is a science that seeks the truth.” Paul Nelson, Ph. D., philosophy of biology.

    Linus Pauling, winner of 2 Nobel prizes wrote, “Science is the search for the truth.”

    “But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding.” Albert Einstein

    The truth need not be an absolute truth. Truth in the sense that Drs. Pauling, Einstein & Nelson are speaking is the reality in which we find ourselves. We exist. Science is to help us understand that existence and how it came to be.

    As I like to say- science is our search for the truth, i.e. the reality, to our existence via our never-ending quest for knowledge.

     

  • At 8:57 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Chapter 10 in "The Privileged Planet" (A Universe Fine-Tuned for Life and Discovery) starts with the following:

    Imagine you’re taken captive by some powerful aliens, like Q on Star Trek: Generation, a group of highly intelligent if utterly obnoxious beings who exist as a sort of unified community called the Q continuum. Among their many qualifications, the Q can travel back in time. In the story we’re concocting, imagine that the Q transport you back to the moment of the Big Bang. After arriving, one Q takes you to a spacious room, with a large, complicated device on one side, adorned with scores of enormous dials not unlike the dials on a Master padlock. On closer inspection, you notice that every knob is inscribed with numbered lines. And above each knob are titles like “Gravitational Force Constant”, Electromagnetic Force Constant”, Strong Nuclear Force Constant”, and “Weak Nuclear Force Constant”.

    You ask Q what the machine is, and after some snide and dismissive comments about the feebleness of the human mind, he tells you that it’s a Universe-Creating Machine. According to Q, the great collective Q continuum used it to create out universe. The machine has a viewing screen that allows the Q to preview what different settings will produce before they press Start. Without going into detail about it works, Q explains that the dials must all be set precisely, or the Universe-Creating Machine will spit out a worthless piece of junk ( as shown on its preview screen), like a universe that collapses on itself within a few seconds into a single black hole or drifts along indefinitely as a lifeless hydrogenated soup.

    “Well how precisely do the knobs have to be set?” you ask. With some embarrassment, Q tells you that, so far, they’ve only found one combination that actually produces a universe even mildly habitable- namely, our own. “So”, you ask, “do you mean that there are only two habitable universes, the one the Q exists in, and ours that you have created?” In a volatile mixture of anger a chagrin, he admits, “Um, no, there’s just this one.” This arouses your suspicions: “Now, what sort of bootstrapping magic allowed you to create the universe you live in?” Crushed by your keen command of logic and highly sensitive baloney detector, Q finally admits, “Well, we didn’t actually find the right combination ourselves. In fact, the machine doesn’t exactly belong to us. We merely found it, with the dials already set. The machine had done its work before we arrived. Ever since then, we’ve been looking for another set of dial combinations to create another habitable universe, but alas, so far we haven’t found one. We’re certain that other habitable universes are possible, though, so we are still looking.”

    This fanciful story illustrates one of the most startling discoveries of the last century: the universe, as described by its physical laws and constants, seems to be fine-tuned for the existence of life.

    That is reality people. The Earth/ Moon system- sheer-dumb-luck. That is if you listen to them. And it just so happens that without a large moon we may not exist at all. We definitely wouldn't have total eclipses from which to gather valuable scientific knowledge and make scientific discoveries.

    Also from TPP:
    “The same narrow circumstances that allow for our existence also provide us with the best over all conditions for making scientific discoveries.”

    “The one place that has observers is the one place that also has perfect solar eclipses.”

    “There is a final, even more bizarre twist. Because of Moon-induced tides, the Moon is gradually receding from Earth at 3.82 centimeters per year. In ten million years will seem noticeably smaller. At the same time, the Sun’s apparent girth has been swelling by six centimeters per year for ages, as is normal in stellar evolution. These two processes, working together, should end total solar eclipses in about 250 million years, a mere 5 percent of the age of the Earth. This relatively small window of opportunity also happens to coincide with the existence of intelligent life. Put another way, the most habitable place in the Solar System yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them.”

    “The combined circumstance that we live on Earth and are able to see stars- that the conditions necessary for life do not exclude those necessary for vision, and vice versa- is a remarkably improbable one.

    This is because the medium we live is, on one hand, just thick enough to enable us to breathe and prevent us from being burned up by cosmic rays, while, on the other hand, it is not so opaque as to absorb entirely the light of the stars and block the view of the universe. What a fragile balance between the indispensable and the sublime.” Hans Blumenberg- thoughts independent of the research done by Gonzalez.

    It was Gonzalez's peer-reviewed scientific research that led him to the design inference. Go figure.


    Good night, and good luck...

     

  • At 1:00 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    “A healthy science is a science that seeks the truth.” Paul Nelson, Ph. D., philosophy of biology.

    Linus Pauling, winner of 2 Nobel prizes wrote, “Science is the search for the truth.”

    “But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding.” Albert Einstein

    I'm sure you will now provide us with the large list of predictions and discoveries available to us by concentrating all our scientific efforts in ID?

    Each proposal should include, at the very least, the following:

    1. An interesting new area of research or solution to a current problem. These might include topics such as: how did all of the matter in the universe get here? or, how did life start on this planet? or, where did the first life in the universe come from? or, why does gravity behave the way it does and why do its rules break down at distances approaching the Planck Length?

    2. Some sort of experiment that will give us new and independent data on the chosen topic. Examples could include: experiments that are able to detect the proposed graviton particle, experiments that provide a way to produce independent life (and a nifty way to tie that to plausible , extant universal conditions would be great)....

    3. Should be actual do-able exercises and not just rhetorical statements. These ideas should, in theory, be interesting to researchers (such as the millions of ID researchers currently working at the Discovery Institue) and get them working.

    Eagerly awaiting these exciting new experimental proposals,

    blipey

     

  • At 1:04 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    blipey:
    Of course, you won't let him post to this thread so that's a bummer.

    Of course that is a lie. Why would you lie?


    Hmmm. If, right at this moment, he posted to this thread, would you publish it?

    You've said you won't (look at the posts in the other thread...). Therefor my statement is categorically true. Thanks for trying.

     

  • At 1:21 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Can natural processes account for the origin of nature if natural processes only exist in nature?

    And what about those laws that govern nature? They "just are"?

    Taking the second question first, "Why not?" This answer cannot be answered effectively by saying I just can't believe it could be any other way. They operative interrogative is "Why".

    As for the first question, that's wht we do science. Science answers questions. Science doesn't posit untestable answers that basically say "Someone, somewhere--which we don't have to know about--did something."

    For an interesting introductory ead on the subject of first causes I suggest the following reading material:

    Dr. Brian Greene's The Fabric of the Cosmos

     

  • At 7:17 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey, What part about the following DON'T you undertsand?:

    The key to Zachriel's posting privilige is in his hands (or where-ever he decided to put it).

    blipey:
    If, right at this moment, he posted to this thread, would you publish it?

    Yes I would.

    blipey:
    You've said you won't

    You have reading comprehension issues.

     

  • At 7:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And what about those laws that govern nature? They "just are"?

    blipey:
    Taking the second question first, "Why not?" This answer cannot be answered effectively by saying I just can't believe it could be any other way. They operative interrogative is "Why".

    That's fine but just don't call it scientific.

    blipey:
    As for the first question, that's wht we do science.

    I know why we do science.

    blipey:
    Science answers questions.

    And until science does answer questions it does NOT rule out any possibilities a priori.

    blipey:
    Science doesn't posit untestable answers that basically say "Someone, somewhere--which we don't have to know about--did something."

    LoL! Can't science help us with those answers too? And why is it OK to say that "something, somewhere, which we don't know about- did something"?

    BTW I read Greene.

     

  • At 7:33 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    I'm sure you will now provide us with the large list of predictions and discoveries available to us by concentrating all our scientific efforts in ID?

    Perhaps you could do the same from the anti-ID position. That way we would have a reference.

    We already have been told that in the anti-ID materialistic scenario there is no way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time. Not only that but it turns out that most, if not all, alleged predictions from that model are really post-hoc accomodations of the data.

    Does blipey even realize that we still do NOT know what makes an organism what it is beyond the following:

    What makes a fly a fly? In his book (English title) “Why is a Fly not a Horse?”, the prominent Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, tells us the following :

    Chapter VI “Why is a Fly not a horse?” (same as the book’s title)

    ”The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.”


    In the future blipey, please keep your comments to the subject at hand. I know that is a bit difficult for you because of your inability to follow along, but by attempting to distract from the topic all you do is to demonstrate to inability to focus.

    As for to do experiments, it should be noted that the theory of evolution does not have experimental support. Efverything we have observed in the lab and in the wild points to wobbling stability.

     

  • At 11:57 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe:

    ToE does not have experimental support.

    Really?

    What about:

    * W. H. Dallinger (1887). The president's address. J. Roy. Microscop. Soc., 185-199.
    * R. E. Lenski (2004). Phenotypic and genomic evolution during a 20,000-generation experiment with the bacterium Escherichia coli. Plant Breeding Reviews 24, 225-265.
    * S. F. Elena and R. E. Lenski (2003). Evolution experiments with microorganisms: the dynamics and genetic bases of adaptation. Nature Reviews Genetics 4, 457-469.
    * R. E. Lenski, M. R. Rose, S. C. Simpson, and S. C. Tadler (1991). Long-term experimental evolution in Escherichia coli. I. Adaptation and divergence during 2,000 generations. American Naturalist 138, 1315-1341.

    OR:

    1. Hahn, M. W., M. D. Rausher, and C. W. Cunningham, 2002. Distinguishing between selection and population expansion in an experimental lineage of bacteriophage T7. Genetics 161:11-20. full text
    2. Oakley, T. H., and C. W. Cunningham, 2000. Independent contrasts succeed where ancestor reconstruction fails in a known bacteriophage phylogeny. Evolution 54:397-405. abstract
    3. Cunningham, C.W., K. Jeng, J. Husti, M. Badgett, I.J. Molineux, D.M. Hillis and J.J. Bull, 1997. Parallel molecular evolution of deletions and nonsense mutations in bacteriophage T7. Mol. Biol. Evol. 14:113-116. full text
    4. Bull, J. J., C. W. Cunningham, I. J. Molineux, M. R. Badgett, and D. M. Hills, 1993. Experimental molecular evolution of bacteriophage T7. Evolution 47:993-1007. abstract
    5. Hillis, D.M., J.J. Bull, M.E. White, M.R. Badgett and I.J. Molineux, 1992. Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny. Science. 255:589-592. abstract & pay article
    6. Studier, F. W., 1980. The last of the T phages, p. 72-78. In N. H. Horowitz and E. Hutchings, Jr. (eds.), Genes, Cells, and Behavior: A View of Biology Fifty Years Later. W.H. Freeman & Co., San Fransisco. ISBN 0-7167-1217-2
    7. Studier, F. W., 1979. Relationships among different strains of T7 and among T7-related bacteriophages. Virology 95:70-84.

    OR:

    Experimental adaptation

    Experimental adaptation involves selection of organisms either for specific traits or under specific conditions...

    1. Bull, J. J., J. Millstein, J. Orcutt and H.A. Wichman. 2006. Evolutionary feedback mediated through population density, illustrated with viruses in chemostats. Am. Nat. 167:E39-E51. abstract
    2. Bull, J. J., M. R. Badgett, R. Springman, and I. J. Molineux. 2004. Genome properties and the limits of adaptation in bacteriophages. Evolution 58:692-701. abstract
    3. Bull, J. J., M. R. Badgett, D. Rokyta, and I. J. Molineux. 2003. Experimental evolution yields hundreds of mutations in a functional viral genome. J. Mol. Evol. 57:241-248. abstract & pay article
    4. Bull, J. J., M.R. Badgett, H.A. Wichman, J.P. Hulsenbeck, D.M. Hillis, A. Gulati, C. Ho and I.J. Molineux. 1997. Exceptional convergent evolution in a virus. Genetics. 147:1497-1507.

    OR:

    1. Poon, A., and L. Chao. 2005. The rate of compensatory mutation in the DNA bacteriophage ΦX174. Genetics. 170:989-999. full text
    2. Heineman, R. H., I. J. Molineux, and J. J. Bull. 2005. Evolutionary robustness of an optimal phenotype: re-evolution of lysis in a bacteriophage deleted for its lysin gene. J. Mol. Evol. 61:181-191. abstract & pay article
    3. Hayashi, Y., H. Sakata, Y. Makino, I. Urabe, and T. Yomo. 2003. Can an arbitrary sequence evolve towards acquiring a biological function? J. Mol. Evol. 56:162-168. abstract & pay article
    4. Rokyta, D., M. R. Badgett, I. J. Molineux, and J. J. Bull. 2002. Experimental genomic evolution: extensive compensation for loss of DNA ligase activity in a virus. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19:230-238. full text
    5. Burch, C. L., and L. Chao. 1999. Evolution by small steps and rugged landscapes in the RNA virus Φ6. Genetics 151:921-927. full text
    6. Klovins, J., N. A. Tsareva, M. H. de Smit, V. Berzins, and D. Van. 1997. Rapid evolution of translational control mechanisms in RNA genomes. J. Mol. Biol. 265:372-384. abstract & pay article
    7. Olsthoorn, R. C., and J. van Duin. 1996. Evolutionary reconstruction of a hairpin deleted from the genome of an RNA virus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93:12256-12261. full text
    8. Nelson, M. A., M. Ericson, L. Gold, and J. F. Pulitzer. 1982. The isolation and characterization of TabR bacteria: Hosts that restrict bacteriophage T4 rII mutants Mol. Gen. Genet. 188:60-68. abstract & pay article
    9. Nelson, M.A. and L. Gold. 1982. The isolation and characterization of bacterial strains (Tab32) that restrict bacteriophage T4 gene 32 mutants Mol. Gen. Genet. 188:69-76.

    I think you get the point.

    I'm sure you will know provide a list of at least half this link that contains nothing but ID papers, working on ID idead, by ID researchers.

    shaking with anticipation,

    blipey

     

  • At 12:02 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    blipey:
    If, right at this moment, he posted to this thread, would you publish it?

    joe:
    Yes I would.

    blipey:
    You've said you won't

    joe:
    You have reading comprehension issues.

    joe from earlier:
    Nothing else from you will be posted on this blog, in any thread, until you comply.

    Since Zachriel has still not posted to that particular thread, we see the matter clearly.

    Either you're lying about banning him from all threads other than that one,

    OR:

    Your lying about allowing him to post this minute on this thread.

    Which is it, Joe?

     

  • At 12:09 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    joe:
    In the future blipey, please keep your comments to the subject at hand.

    Love to, but your scattershot manner of discussing things makes it hard to even know what you're talking about.

    For an example see your avoidance of the NH questions at yours and my blogs.

    You try to refute something not by taking issue with a particular part of it, but by filling all imaginable space with chaff...daring people to take aim at all the junk. Then you complain if they focus on one thing, even though with every post you introduce 500 new topics.

    We're trying, Joe...your rules are too much like Calvin Ball. Fun to play, but ultimately just wasted time.

     

  • At 12:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    ToE does not have experimental support.

    blipey:
    Really?

    Really, really.

    blipey:
    What about:

    What about them?
    Which one demonstrates that a population of bacteria can "evolve" into something other than bacteria?
    Which one demonstrates that a population of single-celled organisms can "evolve" into something other than single-celled organsims?

    E coli "evolving" into E coli is a deception. It is also meaningless when referring to the ToE.

    IOW all you have done was to produce a bluff- that is a long list of scientific articles but not one supports the ToE. Evolution perhaps, but that was not the request. There is a huge difference between the ToE and evolution.

    blipey:
    I think you get the point.

    Of course I do. The point being is that you don't know what you are talking about. You provide data for variations within a population, data that supports wobbling stability.

     

  • At 12:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe:
    In the future blipey, please keep your comments to the subject at hand.

    blipey:
    Love to, but your scattershot manner of discussing things makes it hard to even know what you're talking about.

    Actually it is you who is causing the "scattershot", because it is you who cannot focus on the topic- ie that in the thread's OP.

    blipey:
    For an example see your avoidance of the NH questions at yours and my blogs.

    I looked and don't see any avoidance. Oops yes I do. I see that zachriel is avoiding reality.

     

  • At 12:27 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey,

    Your lack of reading comprehension should be of concern to you.

    The key to Zachriel posting here was given to him. HE controls his posting privileges here, not I.

    What part about that don't you understand?

    I read his "rebuttal" on your blog and it rebuts nothing.

     

  • At 12:31 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Okay, so you don't like the papers I provided.

    I still have seen NO, ZERO, NADA papers from you supporting ID that I may disagree with.

    This speaks volumes about the active, promising, and robust ID research that is going on.

    So, I provided papers from evolutionary biology from working scientists.

    I again ask you to provide your papers from your working ID researchers.

    Please avoid posting them again.

    You asked and I provided. I ask and you dodge.

     

  • At 12:37 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    It does not matter that Zachriel can post to one thread and then you will let him post on another.

    The issue at hand is whether or not you would let him post at this minute. If he did, by your own conditions, you would not publish it. This is jus a restatement of the facts of this particlar system.

    In fact, it's testable. Let's run an experiment:

    Step 1. Zachriel posts a comment to this thread.

    Step 2. Joe then looks to see if his condition has been met. It has not.

    Step 3. Joe does not allow Zachriel's new comment to be posted.

    Conclusion: Blipey is correct in his assessment that Joe will not allow Zachriel, at this moment, to post at this thread.

    I would ask you to go point by pony down this experiment until you get to the part you disagree with...but you've already showed a decided reluctance to do that.

    I'll ask though, which step of the above experiment do you find untrue?

     

  • At 1:18 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    BTW, what did you think of Greene's book? And on a slightly related topic, are you denying that the Big Bang happened?

     

  • At 1:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    Okay, so you don't like the papers I provided.

    Wrong again. I like the papers it is that they do NOT support the ToE. IOW any one of those papers could be used to support variations within a Kind. They could even supprt ID as the debate is about the MECHANISMS involved.

    blipey:
    I still have seen NO, ZERO, NADA papers from you supporting ID that I may disagree with.

    That isn't the topic of this thread.

    Also IF you understood ANYTHING about this debate you would understand that it isn't about ID research. At this point in time the debate is about conducting SCIENTIFIC research and being allowed to reach a design inference if that is what the data warrants.

    And I will note there isn't any scientific research which supports the materialistic anti-ID position.

    blipey:
    So, I provided papers from evolutionary biology from working scientists.

    Irrelevany papers. Papers that do not support the grand claims made by evolutionists.

    blipey:
    You asked and I provided.

    You provided alrigt. Too bad what you provided doesn't do what you think it does.

     

  • At 1:41 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    It does not matter that Zachriel can post to one thread and then you will let him post on another.

    You have serious issues. You apparently can't comprehend what I post.

    He is more than welcome to post here. I welcome his posts. They expose his dishonesty and deception rather nicely. And he is even taking his deception to your blog. He takes it everywhere he goes!

    Zachriel's posting privileges here are in his hands. Period, end of story.

    So when you say:

    Conclusion: Blipey is correct in his assessment that Joe will not allow Zachriel, at this moment, to post at this thread.

    It should really read:

    Conclusion: Blipey is correct in his assessment that Zachriel will not allow Zachriel, at this moment, to post at this thread.

    That would be correct.

     

  • At 1:46 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    And on a slightly related topic, are you denying that the Big Bang happened?

    There are scientific researchers who doubt it. Obviously we exist. My only point is that it isn't due to sheer-dumb-luck.

    As for Greene I preferred Hawking in "A Briefer History of Time".

     

  • At 4:18 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    As for Greene I preferred Hawking in "A Briefer History of Time".

    Of course you do. That one doesn't really deal with the same "moment of creation" issues the way that other books and monographs do. That's alright, it's a great book as well.

    Nice avoidance of the point by point refutation of my experiment, btw. Real studied, scientific work there. I'm sure that anyone can see that I am totally, no: TOTALLY, refuted.

    Which step was it again that you find factually incorrect?

    Oh, that's right, none of them. You didn't even bother to address any of them.

    This one's easier than Zachriel's, too; it has only 3 steps. You can count to three, right?

    awaiting the complete knowledge of my factual errors with trepidation,

    blipey

     

  • At 4:28 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    Nice avoidance of the point by point refutation of my experiment, btw. Real studied, scientific work there. I'm sure that anyone can see that I am totally, no: TOTALLY, refuted.

    It's not that you are "refuted" it is that your premise was severly flawed.

    I spelled it out for you. What part about the following don't you understand?:

    Conclusion: Blipey is correct in his assessment that Zachriel will not allow Zachriel, at this moment, to post at this thread.


    As for Greene I preferred Hawking in "A Briefer History of Time".

    blipey:
    Of course you do.

    Whatever that means.

    blipey:
    That one doesn't really deal with the same "moment of creation" issues the way that other books and monographs do.

    Deal with the "moment of creation"? Are you serious? This is for another thread.

     

  • At 5:13 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Does Zachriel also pick out your clothes for you? Or brush your teeth?

    Because if he doesn't, then you shouldn't let him make these other decisions for you.

    Come on, take some responsibility in your life. Or at least on your own blog.

    So, again, which of the 3 steps in my experiment are factually incorrect?

    Is it this one:

    Zachriel writes a comment to this thread.

    I think it is within his ability to do so. Do you disagree?

    Or, is it this one:

    Joe sees it and looks to find out if his condition for posting has been met. It has not been.

    I believe you can see if Zachriel has posted. I believe you can see that he has not posted to the other thread. Do you disagree?

    Or, perhaps, it is this one:

    Joe doesn't post the comment.

    If you are sticking to your condition, then you would not post the comment. Do you disagree? Remember, disagreeing means that you WOULD post the commen--in violation of your previous statement.

    This experiment is self-contained and there is no variable in it for Zachriel. Now, I could produce another experiment with a Zachriel variable, but that does not matter to the present one.

    Which step is factually incorrect Joe? I know you can tell me.

    blipey

    p.s. Where did the logic dog bite you as a small child? I understand that certain childhoodd experiences can be very traumatic. But, with a little work and dedication, they can be overcome.

    I'm praying for you.

     

  • At 5:17 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    I know that when I said "creation" you'd go all religious on me.

    But the phrase is in quotes for a reason. Greene's area of expertise--string theory--and other theories, including loop quantum gravity and variable speed of light, deal with ideas about the beginnings of everything. Far more so than Hawking's book does.

    They are proposals for exactly how the laws of nature came to be. Theyare just theories, but they are interesting. But, I know you already have the answer: it was designed. That's why I thought you might find the books and papers on such things boring or beneath you.

     

  • At 5:27 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    I know that when I said "creation" you'd go all religious on me.

    You must be seeing a whole team of shrinks!

    1) I am not religious- I am not a Christian
    2) All I did was to quote what YOU said and asked if you were serious. Only a psycho would translate that the way you did.

    Ummm and that something was designed just tells us how to go about investigating it. Reality demonstrates that it makes a great deal of difference to an investigation whether or not what is being investigated was the result of intent or nature, operating freely.

     

  • At 5:33 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey continues to demonstrate he can NOT understand English:

    blipey:
    Does Zachriel also pick out your clothes for you? Or brush your teeth?

    Because if he doesn't, then you shouldn't let him make these other decisions for you.

    Ummm he isn't making any decisons for me. He is making them for himself.

    However it is entertaining as heck to see he has a personal stroker...

    And just because you can twist something the way you want to, means what to the rest of us who would rather deal with reality?

    Conclusion: Blipey is correct in his assessment that Zachriel will not allow Zachriel, at this moment, to post at this thread.

    That is a much more accurate portrayal of reality than anything you have taken that I posted and twisted to suit your stupidity.

    And another tip- "men" with skinny little girly arms should NOT wear sleeve-less shirts.

     

  • At 6:53 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Great, now your an expert on costuming, clown work, mask symbolism and acting also. You truly are a renaissance man.

    If I need your help with my profession, I truly am in a world of hurt. But, as a non-religious, ID advocate I know this makes you an expert in many fields:

    mathematics
    biology
    cosmology
    legal proceedings
    philosophy
    computer programming
    mushroom growing
    journalism
    education

    am I missing anything...I'm sure I could check in at UD and see what IDiots are experts in (with no training might I add), but the place makes me puke.

    Can I add theatre and live performance to the list, too?

     

  • At 6:56 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    If Zachriel is making no decisions for you, then it follows that you are making the decision not to post his comments on this thread. If he is making decisions for you, then....

    So, which of the 3 steps of my experiment are factually incorrect?

    You might need to check in with David Heddle or Crandaddy for other avoidance of question techniques--you've GOTTA be running dry.

     

  • At 7:07 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    Great, now your an expert on costuming, clown work, mask symbolism and acting also.

    Funny I never said nor implied anything of the kind.

    However when a pencil-neck geek, with upper arms smaller than my forearms- wears a sleeve-less shirt, it is sickening.

    blipey:
    If Zachriel is making no decisions for you,

    Zachriel decides for Zachriel:

    Conclusion: Blipey is correct in his assessment that Zachriel will not allow Zachriel, at this moment, to post at this thread.

     

  • At 7:55 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    You know what the most interesting thing about you being a complete jackass is?

    You complain when I interpret your paragraph and claim that I should leave it alone and make no changes in it what-so-ever. Because it means what it means.

    But, you should, apparently, be allowed to make changes in my paragraph any time you want because it doesn't mean what it means.

    Interesting. Of course, I'm sure the similarity will be lost on you.

    he of words that are not inviolate to one who's words apparently are,

    blipey

    p.s. you said you weren't religious, but I'm thinking you should get into it...you'd be good at it--a lot of money if you play your cards right!

     

  • At 7:56 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Oh, I just thought I'd mention that all the fake, bi-sexual girls think I'm cool.

    just so ya' know,

    blipey ;)

     

  • At 8:18 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    Oh, I just thought I'd mention that all the fake, bi-sexual girls think I'm cool.

    Yeah, you're a real legend in your own bitty little mind.

    blipey:
    You complain when I interpret your paragraph

    I didn't complain. I pointed out that you mis-interpretted it.

    blipey:
    But, you should, apparently, be allowed to make changes in my paragraph

    The changes I made to your paragraph made it accurate with reality.

    Therein lies the difference.The changes you made were inaccurate, the change I made cahnged a lie to a truth.

    But I don't expect you to understand.

    And no thank you with respect to religion. I don't need the money...

     

  • At 12:17 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    I knew the similarity would be lost on you.

    You think you know what I mean better than I do?

    So, which of the three steps in my experiment do find factually incorrect?

    If it helps, you may have bad eyesight or something...

    SO, WHICH OF THE THREE STEPS IN MY EXPERIMENT DO YOU FIND FACTUALLY INCORRECT?

     

  • At 12:17 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    I knew the similarity would be lost on you.

    You think you know what I mean better than I do?

    So, which of the three steps in my experiment do find factually incorrect?

    If it helps, you may have bad eyesight or something...

    SO, WHICH OF THE THREE STEPS IN MY EXPERIMENT DO YOU FIND FACTUALLY INCORRECT?

     

  • At 12:17 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    And of course:

    WHICH
    OF
    THE
    3
    STEPS
    OF
    MY
    EXPERIMENT
    DO
    YOU
    FIND
    FACTUALLY
    INCORRECT?

     

  • At 12:19 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    I thought that most IDiots were not on the whole post-modern bandwagon.

    Is this not true?

    Can you tell me what the meaning of the word "is" is?

     

  • At 7:58 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    I thought that most IDiots were not on the whole post-modern bandwagon.

    Reality demonstrates that you are the IDiot.

    blipey:
    Is this not true?

    All I know about IDiots is that they don't understand ID nor do they grasp reality.

     

  • At 8:06 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    I knew the similarity would be lost on you.

    And I knew that facts and reality would be lost on you.

    blipey:
    You think you know what I mean better than I do?

    No but obviously you think what I mean better than I do.

    The changes I made to your paragraph made it accurate with reality.

    Therein lies the difference.The changes you made to my statement were inaccurate. The change I made to yours changed a lie to a truth.

    But I don't expect you to understand.

    the eyesight thing:

    THE CHANGES I MADE TO YOUR PARAGRAPH MADE IT ACCURATE WITH REALITY.

    THEREIN LIES THE DIFFERENCE. THE CHANGES YOU MADE TO MY STATEMENT WERE INACCURATE. THE CHANGE I MADE TO YOURS CHANGED A LIE TO A TRUTH.

    BUT I DON'T EXPECT YOU TO UNDERSTAND.


    So again what psrt of the following DON'T you understand?:

    Conclusion: Blipey is correct in his assessment that Zachriel will not allow Zachriel, at this moment, to post at this thread.

     

  • At 12:12 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    You think you know what I mean better than I do?

    No but obviously you think what I mean better than I do.


    Now, THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKIN' ABOUT!!!

    There's the similarity. I knew you'd get it; you're so smart.

     

  • At 12:14 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So again. Which of the 3 steps of my experiment do you find factually incorrect?

     

  • At 11:37 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The changes I made to your paragraph made it accurate with reality.

    Therein lies the difference.The changes you made to my statement were inaccurate. The change I made to yours changed a lie to a truth.

    But I don't expect you to understand.

    the eyesight thing:

    THE CHANGES I MADE TO YOUR PARAGRAPH MADE IT ACCURATE WITH REALITY.

    THEREIN LIES THE DIFFERENCE. THE CHANGES YOU MADE TO MY STATEMENT WERE INACCURATE. THE CHANGE I MADE TO YOURS CHANGED A LIE TO A TRUTH.

    BUT I DON'T EXPECT YOU TO UNDERSTAND.


    So again what psrt of the following DON'T you understand?:

    Conclusion: Blipey is correct in his assessment that Zachriel will not allow Zachriel, at this moment, to post at this thread.

    blipey:
    you're so smart.

    Compared to you I am a super- genius.

     

  • At 3:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey, cupcake of the year 2006...

     

Post a Comment

<< Home