ID and the Age of the Earth
On other blogs some people are asking about ID's position on the age of the Earth. Here I will atempt to answer that query.
ID's position on the age of the Earth is that it all depends on HOW the Earth was formed. That is key because we know that intelligent agencies can speed up processes- just look at manmade diamonds.
Now there are some who will complain that when one speeds up some processes there will be heat generated, for example from rapid rad decay. These people want to know where the heat went.
First we would have to know how much heat they are talking about and the verification of that. Then I would tell them to look at the Earth's core. IOW any heat generated by rapid decay could have been transeferred to the core. An inteligent designer would know that the core requires heat to stay molten so it can provide a proper magnetic field along with plate tectonic recycling.
So the bottom line is when someone tells you that the Earth is 4.5 byo, all they are really doing is telling you the speculation based on the assumption (that the Earth was not intelligently designed).
ID's position on the age of the Earth is that it all depends on HOW the Earth was formed. That is key because we know that intelligent agencies can speed up processes- just look at manmade diamonds.
Now there are some who will complain that when one speeds up some processes there will be heat generated, for example from rapid rad decay. These people want to know where the heat went.
First we would have to know how much heat they are talking about and the verification of that. Then I would tell them to look at the Earth's core. IOW any heat generated by rapid decay could have been transeferred to the core. An inteligent designer would know that the core requires heat to stay molten so it can provide a proper magnetic field along with plate tectonic recycling.
So the bottom line is when someone tells you that the Earth is 4.5 byo, all they are really doing is telling you the speculation based on the assumption (that the Earth was not intelligently designed).
posted by Joe G @ 12:53 PM
71 Comments:
At 3:40 PM,
blipey said…
HaHaHaHaHoHoHoHoHo.
wow. First of all, isn't the ID position that nothing can be known about the designer?
If this is the case (and it is), then how do you know what level of knowledge God (er, the designer) has of plate techtonics? And why do you hink it is necessary for him (er, it) to have this knowledge?
That would be enlightening. Thanks.
At 2:50 PM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
First of all, isn't the ID position that nothing can be known about the designer?
No.
blipey:
If this is the case (and it is),...
But that isn't the case and YOU don't get to tell me what the case is.
Ya see blipey ID says you don't have to know anything about the designer in order to detect and study the design.
However ID also says that by studying the design in question you may be able to make determinations about the designer and the process.
And that is exactly what has happened. For further information, including the answers to your questions, please read "The Privileged Planet" and you may be enlightened (but I doubt it).
At 1:33 AM,
blipey said…
I've read (and seen) The Priveleged Planet.
I would also be surprised if it were found to be enlightening by anyone.
So, if ID can make determinations about the designer, I'm sure you'll take a moment to tell us what those determinations are?
Remember that if you make any determinations, they will be testable. Those pesky determinations....
At 7:51 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
I've read (and seen) The Priveleged Planet.
Obviously you didn't understand either the book nor the video.
blipey:
I would also be surprised if it were found to be enlightening by anyone.
And I would be surprised if you actually understood any of what "The Privileged Planet" presented.
BTW several peer-reviewed papers came from the research that went into "The Privileged Planet". Therefore it is a given that people were enlightened by it. That is objective and forward thinking people.
blipey:
So, if ID can make determinations about the designer, I'm sure you'll take a moment to tell us what those determinations are?
Umm ID doesn't make any determinations. IDists can though. And "The Privileged Planet" spelled it out for you- that is if you actually did read it and see the video. IOW the testable predictions are spelled out in the book.
But anyway just look up the word "design". Then tell me if you know any agencies that design things they don't know anything about. If you cannot demonstrate that designing agencies design things they do not know about then you have answered your the question of why I think the designer knew about plate tectonics.
At 12:01 AM,
blipey said…
So, using ID principles you have made determinations? So how is it again that ID doesn't make determinations?
Are you aware that science isn't done through symantics?
Joe: However ID also says that by studying the design in question you may be able to make determinations about the designer and the process.
You seem to be saying that ID enables determinations. huh.
At 7:54 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
So, using ID principles you have made determinations?
Using scientific principles guided and guided by scientific investigation, scientists can make determinations about what it is they are investigating.
blipey:
So how is it again that ID doesn't make determinations?
ID is not an entity and as such is not capable of making determinations.
blipey:
Are you aware that science isn't done through symantics?
Semantics. The word is semantics.
And the meaning of words is very important to conveying scientific discovery.
Joe: However ID also says that by studying the design in question you may be able to make determinations about the designer and the process.
blipey:
You seem to be saying that ID enables determinations. huh.
1) Enabling determinations and making them are very different. Only a putz would conflate the two.
2) Scientific investigation enables determinations. But science does NOT make those determinations. However scientists can and do.
But anyway just look up the word "design". Then tell me if you know any agencies that design things they don't know anything about. If you cannot demonstrate that designing agencies design things they do not know about then you have answered your the question of why I think the designer knew about plate tectonics.
At 1:17 AM,
blipey said…
Great. I think we've come to an agreement. ID is only useful as far as people can make determinations from it. So what are they?
You see, science is useful because determinations are made from it. Your great hang-up on ID not making determinations is bogus...what are YOUR (or better, actual scientists') determinations using ID theory?
Any determinations at all would be useful. Thanks.
At 7:55 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
Your great hang-up on ID not making determinations is bogus...
Umm, it's not a "great hang-up" at all. In fact that is what reality demonstrates. PEOPLE make determinations. And as I said only a putz would conflate enabling determinations with making them. Yet that is what you are doing. Go figure...
blipey:
ID is only useful as far as people can make determinations from it. So what are they?
Some were printed in "The Privileged Planet". And some of those have been posted on my blog. For example read "The Privileged Planet- revisited
What are the determinations made from the materialistic anti-ID position of sheer dumb luck? That way we can compare.
Any determinations would be useful. Thanks.
At 8:04 PM,
blipey said…
You've been pointed to many predictions in the past. Your personal favorite? Common Descent by way of a nested hierarchy. This was also nicely demonstrated by the finding of a spliced gene shared between chmpnzees and humans. You know, the great many thousands of scientific papers written using ToE. Small pomme frites, I know, to the vast literature of IDC...but it'll have to do for the moment.
I am also asuming your previous comment means that:
1. You don't think the major usefulness of science is that people can use it to make determinations.
2. It is not important for people to make determinations with ID.
If this is true, what exactly IS the usefulness of ID?
At 10:01 PM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
You've been pointed to many predictions in the past.
Not one based on the premise of sheer dumb luck nor culled genetic accidents.
Your dodge is duly noted.
blipey:
Your personal favorite? Common Descent by way of a nested hierarchy.
And scienctists have demonstrated that Common Descent does not predict a nested hierarchy.
From the “Contemporary Discourse in the Field Of Biology” series I am reading Biological Evolution: An Anthology of Current Thought, edited by Katy Human.
The following are just from the introduction:
"Uncertainty, randomness, nonlinearity, and lack of hierarchy seem to rule existence, at least where evolution is concerned."- page10
blipey:
This was also nicely demonstrated by the finding of a spliced gene shared between chmpnzees and humans.
Do you even realize what had to have occurred for that scenario to even have a chance? The original organism with the (alleged) splice could have only mated with the parent of the opposite sex!
And that splice nor any other biological or genetic data demonstrates that the observed physiological and anatomical differences can even be accounted for via any genetic changes.
blipey:
You know, the great many thousands of scientific papers written using ToE.
I know there isn't any data in any scientific paper that demonstrates that single-celled organisms can evolve into anything but single-celled organisms.
I know there isn't any data in any scientific paper that demonstrates that invertebrates can evolve into vertebrates.
blipey:
I am also asuming your previous comment means that:
Why assume? What I meant is spelled out very clearly. Only a complete moron couldn't follow it.
1. You don't think the major usefulness of science is that people can use it to make determinations.
Umm I said that scientific investigation enables determinations.
2. It is not important for people to make determinations with ID.
It is important for people to be able to come to a design inference if that is what the data warrants. And given the data and the options the design inference at least appears to be the best determination.
blipey:
If this is true,
There wasn't anything "true" in your post.
As usual you are a twisted ignorant twit.
At 10:05 PM,
Joe G said…
To the tune of "My Name is Pancho":
The name is blipey.
A pinhead like zippy.
Not a man, nor woman nor gay.
Not just a pin head.
In fact it is brain dead.
A dead brain that is rotting away!
Ole!
At 10:44 PM,
blipey said…
Wow. Perhaps you should write the new song for American Idol...it'd be perfect if a no-talent like Sanjaya won and sang a song by a no-talent like you.
You missed the point completely, as usual. If it is important for determinations to be made in science, then what determinations can be made by ID?
The "conclusion of design" is not a determination made FROM ID, but only a CONDITION FOR ID. So I'll ask again, "What determinations can be made from ID?"
Coming to a design inference provides no new information and can by definition provide no new information. It is a conclusion of something that has already been assumed. ID is useless.
Once again, if we agree that the sefulness of science or ID is that determinations can be made from them.
At 10:46 PM,
blipey said…
Oh. And you are so getting visited this year. Please have that list of scientists you have debated and embarrassed ready for my perusal.
Remember that we agreed that it should include:
1. the names of scientists you have debated
2. topics that you humiliated them on
3. dates and locations that these whippings took place
You have several months to prepare this list. Thanks.
At 7:57 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
You missed the point completely, as usual.
Reality demonstrates that it is YOU who has missed the point completely, as usual.
blipey:
If it is important for determinations to be made in science, then what determinations can be made by ID?
I already answered that question. All you had to do was to follow the provided link. However it appears you are too stupid to even do that.
One determination was that the universe was designed for scientific discovery. You know just like it says on the cover of "The Privileged Planet". Then of course there are all the other determinations that you wish to remain ignorant of.
blipey:
Coming to a design inference provides no new information and can by definition provide no new information.
Again reality demonstrates that it matters a great deal to any investigation whether or not design has been determined. IOW coming to a design inference provides new information. That is just a fact of life.
blipey:
It is a conclusion of something that has already been assumed.
It is an inference based on the data. It is the evolutionists who conclude what they have already assumed.
blipey:
Once again, if we agree that the sefulness of science or ID is that determinations can be made from them.
And we agree that there aren't any determinations that can be made from sheer dumb luck nor culled genetic accidents.
blipey:
Oh. And you are so getting visited this year.
Not if I visit you first...
At 8:14 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey is is also very telling that you know who is on AI. Only losers would know something like that.
At 11:01 AM,
Joe G said…
As for talents it appears your talent of fabricating lies and misrepresentations is still as strong as ever.
The name is blipey.
A pinhead like zippy.
Not a man, nor woman nor gay.
Not just a pin head.
In fact it is brain dead.
A dead brain that is rotting away!
Ole!
At 6:02 PM,
blipey said…
You do realise yu are becoming John Davison, Jr? Yikes. Can't even come up with new lyrics to your dumbass song. Just repeat the same old bullshit post after post.
As far as The Priveleged Planet goes, the creation of the universe to do stuff like science that we're already doing without the benefit of any ID stuff is plain stupid. That is not a determination made FROM ID DATA. That is an inference made by saying, "I hope that's so."
On this topic, you should really look up "Anthropic Principle".
You've already used the bold function, you better lube up the italics for you ditty....
Oh, and read a newspaper sometime for christ's sake.
At 6:03 PM,
blipey said…
I'm not home very often, but if you give me some notice I'll be sure and be there. Just email me or post it on your blog somwhere.
Make sue you're at home when I drop by as well. Wouldn't want the folk to think you're afraid of a clown, would we?
At 8:03 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
You do realise yu are becoming John Davison, Jr?
Thanks for the compliment!
You do realize you are still a piece of shit.
blipey:
Can't even come up with new lyrics to your dumbass song.
The ditty is cool as it is and does not need new lyrics.
blipey:
Just repeat the same old bullshit post after post.
Your projection is duly noted.
blipey:
As far as The Priveleged Planet goes, the creation of the universe to do stuff like science that we're already doing without the benefit of any ID stuff is plain stupid.
Wow you are a complete moron. Not that I ever had any doubts. But every time you post you remove any doubt that was there.
But that proves you either didn't read the book or you are just too stupid to understand it.
It also shows that you don't understand the blog The Privileged Planet- revisited- just click on those highlighted words.
blipey:
That is not a determination made FROM ID DATA.
It is an ID determination using SCIENTIFIC DATA. That is how it is done. But I wouldn't expect a dumbass clown to understand reality.
blipey:
On this topic, you should really look up "Anthropic Principle".
Looked it up, read and understand it. It is also presented in "The Privileged Planet" which you would have known had you actually read the book.
blipey:
Oh, and read a newspaper sometime for christ's sake.
I read 2-3 daily.
So blipey, how about those determinations made from the materialistic anti-ID position of sheer dumb luck? So far you have avoided that like the plague. And that demonstrates your intellectual cowardice.
BTW I'm not home often either so you had better drop a line to announce your arrival.
At 8:50 AM,
Joe G said…
Page 270 of “The Privileged Planet”
“In fact, no amount of evidence for apparent design could ever count as evidence of actual design. But if science is a search for the best explanation, based on the actual evidence from the physical world, rather than merely a search for the best materialistic or impersonal explanations of the physical world, how responsible is it to adopt a principle that makes one incapable of seeing an entire class of evidence?”
Ya see blipey as you keep your head up your ass you are incapable of seeing an entire class of evidence. (we already knew you are irresponsible)
At 8:55 AM,
Joe G said…
The name is blipey.
A pinhead like zippy.
Not a man, nor woman nor gay.
Not just a pin head.
In fact it is brain dead.
A dead brain that is rotting away!
Ole!
At 1:27 PM,
blipey said…
You're really going to have to start paying me a royalty, Joe. You have no original material and you just rip off my suggestions (italicizing your lyrics) in order to prove my point (that you have no originality).
Please try to be interesting while trying to insult people. You come off as a piss-poor community theatre reject at a Renaissance Festival. At least strive to be entertaining. Oh, some science once in a while would be nice, as well.
At 1:29 PM,
blipey said…
As far as the visits go, I meant I'm not often in town (working and all). If you'll give me some notice though, I can meet you anywhere. If it's merely for lunch or an afternoon bruhaha, whatever, I'll make the time.
I hope you meant the same. Otherwise it might look like you're avoiding me. You've so nicely provided your address and promised to provide detailed information to people who show up at your house. I hope you weren't lying.
At 2:51 PM,
Joe G said…
blipey,
You are an insult to people. And if you had an IQ over 50 you would have noticed I did not rip off your suggestion as not all lyrics were italicized.
However I did incorporate your suggestion into the pre-existing format to give the ditty an original flare.
I take you're just pissed off because of its accuracy.
And if you show up on my door-step I promise I will give you detailed information on how I know that it is accurate.
I take it you took to entertaining because you just couldn't understand anything else- entertaining being the lowest of man's industries- and obviously science is a foreign word to you.
I will provide you with detailed information on how science operates as well. You will have a first-hand demonstration and may even become part of history.
This is going to be an exciting year!
Oh thanks again for demonstrating your intellectual cowardice by avoiding the following:
So blipey, how about those determinations made from the materialistic anti-ID position of sheer dumb luck?
You do realize you will have to answer that before you get anything out of me- nothing is free.
At 3:42 PM,
blipey said…
Joe, please read something besides The Priveleged Planet.
There are entire journals devoted to nothing other than research based on ToE. You dismiss these out of han, having not read any of them. It is you who are trying to create the new paradigm, so it is your onus to show something positive in order to revolutionize scientific thinking. That you avoid this show just how badly off your side is.
It is the new kid on the block that needs to show his goods, not the other way around. This is not, as you no doubt believe, because the oldkid has no goods. It is because his goods are already on the market and successful--the new stuff has to prove worthy. How exactly has ID done that?
As for the ditty--not original. You had already bolded and I suggested italicizing. A combo is just boring, there's no new content. Now, if you'd done it as originally posted and every other word was in Spanish (rather than italics), that would be something new and fresh. You see, that changes the dynamic of the ditty and adds new stylistic twists.
This is something you might realise if you'd take a class in the extremely lowly fine arts. But, probably not; you'd just argue with the instructor, the class, and the audience (all of whom thought your ditty was crap) and tell them all what a true artiste you were.
If you can't successfully work in the arts, you probably shouldn't disparage them. Oh, same with science.
At 4:10 PM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
Joe, please read something besides The Priveleged Planet.
blipey, I have. Right now I am reading "The Ancestor's Tale" by Richard Dawkins. So far it is more of the same unsupported nonsense that I have already read. Just in a new narrative.
blipey:
There are entire journals devoted to nothing other than research based on ToE.
Reality demonstrates there are NO journals based on sheer dumb luck.
Also, blipey, everything in journals is based on observation and testing. Most everything being debated has not been observed and can ONLY be tested subjectively.
IOW I challenge you to find ONE article that demonstrates prokaryotes can "evolve" into something other than prokaryotes.
However I know the best you can do is to find an article that assumes proks evolved into sometrhing other than proks and then shows what they think is confirming evidence.
blipey:
You dismiss these out of han, having not read any of them.
That is false. I have read many articles and I have challenged many people to present the data that refutes what I am saying.
The BEST anyone ever does is to bluff, just like you are doing. That is because they are ignorant little-minded fools- just like you.
blipey:
It is you who are trying to create the new paradigm, so it is your onus to show something positive in order to revolutionize scientific thinking.
Ideas of intelligent design have been around for millenia. Creation was THE paradigm and was replaced "just because". IOW there wasn't anything positive to replace it just distaste for it.
blipey:
That you avoid this show just how badly off your side is.
It would be nice to have something, anything to compare against. So far you have avoided providing anything to do that with.
blipey:
It is the new kid on the block that needs to show his goods, not the other way around.
Any alleged "new kid" just has to have the SAME standard of evidence as any reigning paradigm. That is how it works. And if teh reigning paradigm doesn't have any goods, which appears to be the case, then it should just move aside. You know- put up or shut up.
blipey:
It is because his goods are already on the market and successful--the new stuff has to prove worthy.
LOL!!! Successful? Successful at what? It is useless because it is unverifiable. It is useless because it is not testable, objectively. It is useless because we STILL have NO idea what mechanism, if any, can account for the diversity observed.
Working in the arts is for people who can't do anything useful, ie people who would otherwise be useless to society. Now of course there are some exceptions, but that appears to be the rule.
As for science it is obvious I have forgotten more about science than you ever knew. And I don't forget much.
At 4:14 PM,
Joe G said…
Also it is funny that you accuse me of not having read any scientific journals as it is obvious you never have. It is obvious that you just buy the ToE hook, line and sinker because YOU obviously cannot think for yourself.
Most likely people laughed at you your whole life so you figured you may as well get paid- that is why you "became" a clown. The people who knew you the best didn't even know the difference.
Now how about those determinations made from sheer dumb luck?
At 3:56 AM,
blipey said…
How much do you hate your job, Joe? It sure must bother you a lot. I mean it's nice that you're so concerned aout whether I make a living, and whether or not I'm happy at it, but maybe you should conentrate on your own job for a while. Find something that you're good at. Find something that you're happy with. You'll find that each of you days is a little brighter.
At 8:14 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
How much do you hate your job, Joe?
I don't hate my job.
blipey:
It sure must bother you a lot.
YOU are the only "it" that bothers me. However it is just a litle as that is all you are capable of- a little of this and a little of that.
blipey:
I mean it's nice that you're so concerned aout whether I make a living, and whether or not I'm happy at it,
I'm not concerned about anything you do.
And beating back punks like you makes my days very bright. It makes me happy knowing there are totally useless fools like you out there. That alone provides the impetus to keep me at my best. Thanks.
Now how about those determinations made from sheer dumb luck?
At 12:53 PM,
blipey said…
Why don't you take your research findings in to some working scientists and let them know that your conclusions will make their jobs a lot easier?
I wonder why none of them are using ID?
Oh yeah, because their work doesn't need any ID since ID makes no conclusions. This is what I meant about ID being the new kid.
Design as the old kid is stupid, Joe. The design inference made by ancient peoples was certainly based on 2 things only:
1. They didn't know any biology, chemistry, or astrophysics.
2. Their religious leaders told them that the Bible, Koran, Torah, whatever, was literally true.
Can we really make the same inference now?
At 7:05 PM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
Oh yeah, because their work doesn't need any ID since ID makes no conclusions.
What conclusions are made by sheer dumb luck?
What value does saying our existence is due to sheer dumb luck add to anything?
Also thanks for further expsoing your willful ignorance. I posted several scientific conclusions made from the design inference.
blipey:
Design as the old kid is stupid, Joe.
You're stupid blipey. Design as the old kid is reality.
blipey:
The design inference made by ancient peoples was certainly based on 2 things only:
As if you would know. But let's look anyway-
1. They didn't know any biology, chemistry, or astrophysics.
And if they had they would have reached the SAME conclusion. The new data just solidifies it.
2. Their religious leaders told them that the Bible, Koran, Torah, whatever, was literally true.
Again REALITY refutes your nonsense. What religion was Aristotle?
You do realize that geocentrism, for example, was a SCIENTIFIC conclusion, and NOT a Biblical one.
It also begs the question- were people religious first or was it that the science told them there was a reason to be religious?
blipey:
Why don't you take your research findings in to some working scientists and let them know that your conclusions will make their jobs a lot easier?
What kind of drooling nonsensical question is that? Are you rabid or are you just chewing on alka seltzer tablets?
Take my research findings- that being that entertainers on averarge are a worthless lot- to what scientists, exactly?
blipey:
I wonder why none of them are using ID?
You are an imbecile. Even AFTER it has be explained to you time and again you still refuse to "get it". The issue is to be able to conduct SCIENTIFIC research and be allowed to come to a design inference if that is what the data warrants.
Weigh the data against the options. But I wouldn't expect a clown to understand scientific reality.
However even though you don't "get it" reality again refutes you:
Scott Minnich
"Biochemist Michael Behe used the flagella to illustrate the concept of irreducible complexity and Minnich takes the argument to the next level crediting the design paradigm to leading to new insights in his lab research at the University of Idaho."
And I also know there is a new lab opened so that IDists can take their ideas to the next level. Which will be one level above the current paradigm.
At 7:08 PM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
Can we really make the same inference now?
Only if we go by what is observed.
At 11:07 PM,
blipey said…
Please keep explaining ID on this blog and never stop.
It makes a great exhibit.
At 7:51 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
Please keep explaining ID on this blog...
It is very odd that you would say such a thing as it is obvious you don't understand any explanations pertaining to science, especially ID.
blipey:
It makes a great exhibit.
Yes it makes a great place to exhibit your ignorance. This thread is just one of many examples of your stupidity and ignorance.
Thank you. And thank you for confirming my conclusion that entertainers, on average, are a worthless lot. (not that I needed you to confirm the obvious)
At 8:36 PM,
blipey said…
Joe: Thank you. And thank you for confirming my conclusion that entertainers, on average, are a worthless lot. (not that I needed you to confirm the obvious)
I expect that I will not be seeing you do any of the following:
1. listening to the radio (possible exception for Rush Limbaug)
2. playing CDs
3. watching movies
4. watching television
5. attending the theatre
6. going to the symphony
7. reading any fiction books
8. taking your kids to story-time at the library
9. telling your kids a bedtime story
10. listening to or reading poetry
11. watching a juggler or street-performer
12. going to the circus
13. allowing your kids to do any of the above
Your tiny little world comes into focus....
At 6:13 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
I expect that I will not be seeing you do any of the following:
True. It is pretty much a given that YOU won't being seeing me do any of that.
At 10:41 AM,
blipey said…
Yep, Joe. I expect to hear nothing about it either. In fact, if it ever comes out that you do any of those things, you'll probably have to turn in your wingnut crank card.
I mean, if the arts are so worthless, you'd better not take part in any of them. I'll be checking up on this.
At 6:45 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey,
Thanks again for proving that you cannot read, which pretty much proves my point, which is:
And thank you for confirming my conclusion that entertainers, on average, are a worthless lot. (not that I needed you to confirm the obvious)
Got that blipey?! ENTERTAINERS, ON AVERAGE, ARE A WORTHLESS LOT.
Only a complete imbecile would take what I said and infer that I meant "the arts are so worthless".
It has become glaringly obvious that your lame physical stature is surpassed by your stupidity. IOW I completely understand why you "became" a clown- you didn't have to do anything.
Good luck with that.
At 9:45 AM,
Joe G said…
To recap-
This blog entry pertains to ID and the Age of the Earth. The first hint for that would be the title of the entry.
blipey chimes in with (not by focusing on the topic as that would take actual knowledge) an exhibit of his ID ignorance.
When that ignorance is exposed to him (he really thought he was on to something), all he can do is to mindlessly (he didn't have a choice) flail away at another strawman.
And blipey loves a strawman. After all a strawman doesn't have a brain, either.
At 1:32 AM,
blipey said…
Quick Joe, you'd better be erasing that first post of mine. You know, the one that was completely on topic to start the comments on the thread?
To claim that I was immediately chiming in with off-topic things. Lots of erasing to do now. Blog maintanence must be difficult for you.
And you show yourself once again to not be able to understand actual prose composition. You quite obviously think very little of entertainers and artists. So, it does follow that there is a high likelihood that you don't care for the arts or entertainment. To claim otherwise is dog-ass stupid.
Happily keeping your blog afloat,
blipey
At 7:42 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
Quick Joe, you'd better be erasing that first post of mine.
Why would I want to erase that post when it exposes your ID ignorance as well as your inability to reply on topic?
AGAIN the topic is "ID and the Age of the Earth". Not one of your posts deals with that topic. IOW thanks for exposing your dishonesty too.
blipey:
And you show yourself once again to not be able to understand actual prose composition.
Reality demonstrates it is you who cannot understand what is posted. I will go with reality.
blipey:
You quite obviously think very little of entertainers and artists.
You quite obviously don't know what you are talking about. But that is something that was understood from your first post on Intelligent Reasoning.
It is very telling that you can't understand what the word "average" means. It is also obvious that despite reality you will always draw your own and quite incorrect, inference.
blipey:
So, it does follow that there is a high likelihood that you don't care for the arts or entertainment.
That may follow in your little bitty, non-developed brain. However to the rest of the world you are just a shit-eating, pencil-neck geek.
As for "dog-ass stupid", that is still way to smart for you. A dog's ass is much smarter than you will ever be.
At 12:05 PM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
Happily keeping your blog afloat,
Happily because ignorance is bliss. Keeping my blog afloat- only if your shit floats because that is all you are capable of spewing.
But anyway I guess I have to explain everything I post so that blipey does not have to infer anything about what was posted.
When I posted:
And thank you for confirming my conclusion that entertainers, on average, are a worthless lot. (not that I needed you to confirm the obvious)
I should have further explained that "on average" means there are some or at least one that are/ is not worthless.
Ya see when one takes the average of something it includes all, from the worst to the best. And it the likes of the blipeys in this world that are by far the worst of the worst. It is that lot which drags the average way down to the "worthless" level.
IOW although I find blipey to be very entertaining, I would never pay to see him "perform". That is how I define worthless- not being worth any price of admission.
At 1:49 PM,
blipey said…
How's that list coming? You can make an absurd number of paranoid conditions on our meeting, like DaveScot; that would be fine.
I'm still showing up at your house and asking for the list of scientists you've humiliated. Please have it ready.
At 4:43 PM,
Joe G said…
I am looking forward to the meeting. My list is completed. You will only see it once you give me the list I requested or $10,000. I don't give anything away for free.
At 10:42 PM,
blipey said…
Ah yes, the "I have the evidence but I need to keep it secret so the Raelians don't suckmy skull dry so you aren't ever going to see it but it really does exist, no seriously" condition.
That's awesome.
At 9:23 AM,
Joe G said…
Ah yes, it's the "I have no intention of ever substantiating my position" response.
That is awesome.
Ya see blipey I have made my point very clear. Scum licking assholes like yourself do NOT get to tell me what to do or demand something from me without paying a price.
Your price, as I stated, is to provide some peer-reviewed papers that demonstrate our existence is due to sheer dumb luck. In the absence of that you can give me $10,000. And that is fair considering the time and effort it took to accomodate your demand.
Either condition should be easily met. Someone who was really interested in my data wouldn't have any issue with my request. And someone as anti-ID as you are should have no problem gathering data for the materialsitic anti-ID position of sheer dumb luck. After all it is the reigning paradigm.
And in the end you are not getting anything from me for free. I have made that clear for months. Nothing has changed- except now you have changed gears to "super stupid mode".
Do you know what the law says I can get away with (doing) when a psycho internet stalker shows up on my door-step?
At 10:33 AM,
blipey said…
Gee, Joe. That isn't a threat is it? I seem to remember something about ow you NEVER threaten anyone. So I'm sure this isn't a theat:
Joe: Do you know what the law says I can get away with (doing) when a psycho internet stalker shows up on my door-step?
Yes, that is an invitation for your very funny response containing the reasons that this in no way could be construed as a threat. I await, already smiling.
Also, have you tried pub-med? Or any biology journal? Or your local library? All of these places should be full of peer-reviewed papers on ToE.
You see, Joe, it doesn't matter--necessarily--if you just don't happen to believe or understand (or both) these papers. They exist and they work on modern biological problems. Your saying they don't doesn't really hold any water. Now, that could change. How?
Well, you could actually read one (or better--several) of these papers. Then you could write a step by step critique of said paper and show how the scientists are wrong in their assumptions, technique, or conclusions (or all of the above). Don't you agree that that would be lot better than saying, "I, Joe, don't believe them."
On the other hand, my request for your proof of having wiped the floor with scientists is a little more difficult to fulfill. I can't go to the library--or indeed, anywhere--to find proof of this. It is such an unlikely event and your proposal so much outside the minstream that the burden of proof has to fall to you. Without your willingness to sare your knowledge, ID must continue to be the residence of cranks.
If you were truly interested in making ID a valid area of research, one would think you'd be trying to share your knowledge with veryone, everywhere.
But maybe ID is not all that important, huh?
At 11:23 AM,
Joe G said…
Gee blipey, only a (guilty as charged) psycho internet stalker would think that is a threat.
blipey:
Also, have you tried pub-med? Or any biology journal? Or your local library? All of these places should be full of peer-reviewed papers on ToE.
Great then it should be easy for you to find something that, for example, demonstrates the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans can be accounted via culled random genetic accidents.
And as ID determinations extend beyond biology perhaps you could also bring over the peer-reviewed article that demonstrates living organisms arose from non-living matter via stochastic processes.
That would go a long way to bolster any claims made in the name of the ToE.
blipey:
You see, Joe, it doesn't matter--necessarily--if you just don't happen to believe or understand (or both) these papers. They exist and they work on modern biological problems.
I have read and understand the papers I have read. Nothing comes close to showing that our existence is due to sheer dumb luck. Not one.
So if there is so much out there why don't YOU just go find one and present it- here.
I will wait. I have been waiting. All I see is one continued bluff.
blipey:
Without your willingness to sare your knowledge, ID must continue to be the residence of cranks.
Go cry to your momma. But I digress. I am more than willing to share my knowledge of ID. And I am also more than willing to fulfill your irrelevant demands, which wouldn't add any knowledge of ID.
However if I am going to fulfill your personal demand you must pay a price. The list took time and effort to put together. The bigger the scum-sucker the higher the price. And a list containing names of scientists is a dangerous thing in the hands of someone like you. In order to live with myself the price just jumped to $20K- I know you can't find a sheer dumb luck paper.
At 11:13 PM,
blipey said…
Oh, I don't feel threatened by you, far from. I just wanted to see if you had learned what constitutes a threat in the last month or so. Didn't seem to know with Lenny....
Still like the amount of actual science content here.
At 11:16 PM,
blipey said…
Joe: I am more than willing to share my knowledge of ID.
Hmmm. For cash. You and Dembski DO have much in common.
At 11:18 PM,
blipey said…
Not my personal demand. I believe the world has been waiting for a decade for some ID research. That's way before I got interested in its silliness.
Do you need 20 grand from every single individual in the world before you "share your knowledge"?
Now you just sound like a televangelist, and we know how honest and trustworthy they are.
At 6:53 AM,
Joe G said…
Joe: I am more than willing to share my knowledge of ID.
Hmmm. For cash.
No I have shared much of my knowledge about ID for free. Just read my blog entries.
Oh, I don't feel threatened by you, far from.
I don't feel threatened by you either. Far from it.
I just wanted to see if you had learned what constitutes a threat in the last month or so.
I know what constitutes a threat. Obviously you are still clueless.
Didn't seem to know with Lenny....
YOU didn't seem to know. And you apparently still do not.
Still like the amount of actual science content here.
You couldn't tell actual science from a fairy tale.
Not my personal demand.
It is YOUR personal demand that I give you a list of names of scientists I have humiliated.
But thanks for again showing your inability to follow along.
I believe the world has been waiting for a decade for some ID research.
Then all they have to do is read.
I bet the world has been waiting longer for some culled genetic accident research but so far nothing.
Now you just sound like a televangelist, and we know how honest and trustworthy they are.
LoL!!! YOU talking about being "honest and trustworthy" is a hoot! You have never been either in your entire life!
At 12:01 PM,
blipey said…
What should the world read? Or will that cost the world 20 grand as well? Where is the research? Where are the experiments? Where are the labs doing this ID research?
The world is waiting to read.
Do your blog comments ever strike you as "nah-nah-nah-nah-bo-bo, did not, did not, did not!"
Just wondering.
At 3:26 PM,
Joe G said…
What should the world read?
Whatever the world wants to. If the world is interested in ID they should start by reading "The Privileged Planet". And when they can explain the same data in a sheer dumb luck reference IDists will listen- science will listen.
Where is the research?
That is what I keep asking.
What research shows that the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans can be accounted for via culled genetic accidents?
Where are the experiments?
There aren't any experiments that support the theory of evolution. We are told there just isn't enough time.
Do your blog comments ever strike you as "nah-nah-nah-nah-bo-bo, did not, did not, did not!"
ALL of your posts strike me that way.
At 9:05 PM,
blipey said…
So, your answer to where is the ID research (which everyone says is going on--just ask the Discovery Institute) is to say that there s no evolutionary research?
Are you saying the DI is lying? If not, where is the research going on? At what labs?
It's all well and good to say tht Evolution doesn't work, but where are ID experiments that do work? If you're going to change th framework of science, shouldn't you actually replace it with some work?
See, that would be a positive argument.
And you really should have your hatred of clowns looked at. That can't be healthy--it must take a lot of energy to be that hateful to an entire class of people.
At 7:48 AM,
Joe G said…
So, your answer to where is the ID research (which everyone says is going on--just ask the Discovery Institute) is to say that there s no evolutionary research?
I never said nor implied such a thing.
You should have someone look at your warped brain. Perhaps they could straighten out your thought process.
It's all well and good to say tht Evolution doesn't work, but where are ID experiments that do work?
Ummm seeing that ID is not anti-evolution thanks for once again for exposing your ignorance. IOW ID does NOT say that "evolution doesn't work". Not even close.
If you're going to change th framework of science, shouldn't you actually replace it with some work?
That would depend on how that framework became established. And it is a given that the materialistic anti-ID position of sheer dumb luck was not established by any "work".
And you really should have your hatred of clowns looked at.
Now if someone could demonstrate such hatred exists I would listen. However everyone knows you just take shit out of your anus, chew it and then spew it. IOW you are a known liar who is always 180 degrees out of phase with reality.
At 1:01 PM,
blipey said…
Do you even read your own comments? Or maybe you just have your dog type them up?
At 2:18 PM,
Joe G said…
I see blipey still suffers from the inability to comprehend what is posted.
That is most likely due to the fact he doesn't understand what is being debated, remains willfully ignorant of ID and is totally clueless when it comes to science.
At 12:07 PM,
blipey said…
Me: Where is the research?
Joe: That is what I keep asking.
What research shows that the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans can be accounted for via culled genetic accidents?
This is a question I asked of Joe and his, um, amswer. You might notice that instead of answering, he changes the topic.
Then, to compound the stupidity, the next exchange is:
Me: So, your answer to where is the ID research (which everyone says is going on--just ask the Discovery Institute) is to say that there s no evolutionary research?
Joe: I never said nor implied such a thing.
And finally:
Me: I see blipey still suffers from the inability to comprehend what is posted.
Yikes, Joe. My question still stands, "Do you even read your own comments?"
At 2:20 PM,
Joe G said…
Again the obvious was lost on blipey's little mind. Pretty much par for the course.
Ya see blipey you shouldn't ask of ID what the reigning paradigm can't even provide.
Also, if you had any ability to do any research of your own, which means all you have to do is read my blog, you would know about the the biologic institute.
All that substantiates my claim that blipey does not have the ability to comprehend what is posted. It also substantiates my claim that he is a willfully ignorant imbecile.
At 1:57 AM,
blipey said…
Ya see blipey you shouldn't ask of ID what the reigning paradigm can't even provide.
A lovely piece of reasoning. It is terribly unfair that ID be asked to actually DO anything. Terrible shame, that.
At 7:55 AM,
Joe G said…
Ya see blipey you shouldn't ask of ID what the reigning paradigm can't even provide.
A lovely piece of reasoning.
Yes it is but obviously you don't understand it.
It is terribly unfair that ID be asked to actually DO anything.
Wrong again, as usual.
It is unfair to ask of ID what the reigning paradigm can't do.
IOW there isn't any scientist trying to demonstrate that the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans can be accounted for via culled genetic accidents.
There isn't any peer-reviewed articles that demonstrate a population of single-celled organisms can "evolve" into something other than single-celled organisms.
IOW the theory of evolution is void of actual science.
All that substantiates my claim that blipey does not have the ability to comprehend what is posted. It also substantiates my claim that he is a willfully ignorant imbecile.
At 9:02 AM,
Joe G said…
Ya see blipey if you ask of ID what the reigning paradigm can't provide that is called "employing a double-standard".
Only intellectual cowards wemploy double-standards- never mind, it is clear why you would do such a thing.
At 12:45 PM,
blipey said…
What questions are you trying to answer, Joe?
What is the purpose of knowledge? These are the things that I think we differ on.
I think that we pursue science--and indeed all knowledge--in order to live better, make life easier, better the world for our kids, etc.
If "the current paradigm" doesn't provide satisfactory answers, what needs to be done?
It would seem that "a new paradigm" would only be more useful than the old one if it provides satisfactory answers that the old one doesn't.
If the increase of knowledge is indeed the goal, it is completely fair to ask that ID provide something that ToE can't. This is not because it is ID. This is because any theory should be better than the old one and PROVIDE INFO THE OLD DOES NOT.
The only way that this argument fails is if the purpose of science (and ID, and metaphysics, etc) is not to advance knowledge but to do something else: reassure? cull the masses? economic? political?
If the purpose of science and ID run along these lines, it is not legitimate to ask either the old or the new to provide new information.
At 2:58 PM,
Joe G said…
What questions are you trying to answer, Joe?
The questions you have been ignoring since your first post.
It would seem that "a new paradigm" would only be more useful than the old one if it provides satisfactory answers that the old one doesn't.
But the current paradigm isn't of any use at all. It only adds knowledge if untestable speculation is knowledge.
But all this is moot but obviously your head is so far up your ass that you didn't read my response that pointed out the biologic institute.
At 2:58 PM,
Joe G said…
What questions are you trying to answer, Joe?
The questions you have been ignoring since your first post.
It would seem that "a new paradigm" would only be more useful than the old one if it provides satisfactory answers that the old one doesn't.
But the current paradigm isn't of any use at all. It only adds knowledge if untestable speculation is knowledge.
But all this is moot but obviously your head is so far up your ass that you didn't read my response that pointed out the biologic institute.
At 2:58 PM,
Joe G said…
What questions are you trying to answer, Joe?
The questions you have been ignoring since your first post.
It would seem that "a new paradigm" would only be more useful than the old one if it provides satisfactory answers that the old one doesn't.
But the current paradigm isn't of any use at all. It only adds knowledge if untestable speculation is knowledge.
But all this is moot but obviously your head is so far up your ass that you didn't read my response that pointed out the biologic institute.
At 9:43 PM,
blipey said…
That's hilarious. You triple posted on your own blog. Fabulous.
So, I assume that you don't believe it is ID's (or any new theory's) job to better explain things?
That's the only possible explanation for saying ID doesn't need to provide any answers because ToE doesn't.
Aren't you always saying that ID isn't anti-ToE? So, why are you trying to tie ID's lack of answers to the ToE?
Weird.
At 7:54 AM,
Joe G said…
That's hilarious. You triple posted on your own blog. Fabulous.
I take it you don't understand a software glitch when you see it.
So, I assume that you don't believe it is ID's (or any new theory's) job to better explain things?
ID is a better explanation than sheer dumb luck.
That's the only possible explanation for saying ID doesn't need to provide any answers because ToE doesn't.
That is false. I also explained it.
Ya see any competeing alternative just has to provide the SAME level of evidence as any reigning paradigm in order to get the same status.
Aren't you always saying that ID isn't anti-ToE?
False. I said ID is not anti-evolution.
The ToE, as it currently stands, is all about culled genetic accidents, ie sheer dumb luck.
I take it you are having difficulty understanding te biologic institute.
I find it weird that you would ask for something, I provide it, and then you just ignore it.
Willfull ignorance at its finest.
At 11:55 AM,
blipey said…
Joe, you should really think more before typing.
Joe: Ya see any competeing alternative just has to provide the SAME level of evidence as any reigning paradigm in order to get the same status.
Since you consider the ToE to be a completely waste of time and bogus, by saying that ID has only to provide the same amount of info as ToE, you are sayng that ID is completely a waste of time and bogus. Hmmm.
Surely, you think that ID is better? So, its status should be better? So, it should provide more info? Hmmm.
Anyway, new theoris in science do not need to provide the same amount of info, they need to either provide more and better info or they need to provide the info in a simpler, more consistent way. In neither case does a new theory just have to be the same as the old one. If that were the case, why change?
Joe: False. I said ID is not anti-evolution.
This in rsponse to my claiming you said, "ID is not anti-ToE". So, what IS your definition of evolution? What brand of evolution exists that is entirely consistent with ID and is not consistent with ToE?
Remember to explain in your own words. I can read your links all day. Those links are not your words, it's nice to see if you can reason with your own brain. Google is a wonderful thing, but it in no way forces a reader to think or comprehend. Let's see how you're doing on that end. Explain an ID consistent evolution in your own words.
As for the software glitch, I see you're still having some trouble erasing the extra posts. Do you understand your control panel?
At 1:16 PM,
Joe G said…
Joe, you should really think more before typing.
That's funny! A person that couldn't think to save its life is telling me I should think before typing!
Since you consider the ToE to be a completely waste of time and bogus, by saying that ID has only to provide the same amount of info as ToE, you are sayng that ID is completely a waste of time and bogus.
Not even close. Once again you demonstrate you total lack of a thought process.
I will explain it to you- and I will type slower (that may help):
Ya see any competeing alternative just has to provide the SAME level of evidence as any reigning paradigm in order to get the same status.
By that I mean that the same status would give IDists the same resources to evaluate their claims.
Anyway, new theoris in science do not need to provide the same amount of info,
Spoken like a clown. I never said anything about info.
they need to either provide more and better info or they need to provide the info in a simpler, more consistent way.
And just what do you know about such things? You are a clown.
So, what IS your definition of evolution?
How many times do I have to provide it? Thank you for again exposing your willful ignorance.
Reference provided in the original:
1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature
2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population
3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.
4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.
5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: 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.
See also- Biological Evolution: What is being debated
What brand of evolution exists that is entirely consistent with ID and is not consistent with ToE?
The ToE is #6. 1-5 are OK with ID. See the link.
Remember to explain in your own words.
Remember YOU haven't explained anything in your own words.
It is a fact that when people say "explain in your own words" they are not interested in reality. If they were interested in reality any valid explanation would suffice.
Google is a wonderful thing, but it in no way forces a reader to think or comprehend.
Google or no google you have demonstrated an inability to read and comprehend.
As for the software glitch, I see you're still having some trouble erasing the extra posts.
From your earlier post I know those posts bother you and I have decided to let them stand.
Now how about getting back to the topic of this thread.
If you can't stay on topic then go pollute some other blog. I deal with enough imbeciles already.
Post a Comment
<< Home