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

Monday, April 02, 2007

"The Privileged Planet"- revisited

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?- page 270


Guillermo Gonzalez, one of the authors of “The Privileged Planet”, was a (Carl) Sagonite. However the book refutes Sagan.

It was Gonzalez’s paper “Wonderful Eclipses,” Astronomy & Geophysics 40, no. 3 (1999): 3.18- 3.20), that peaked the book’s co-author’s (Jay Richards) interest.

Gonzalez was part of a team of scientists working for NASA on a project trying to determine whether or not there is life “out there”.

At least one peer-reviewed paper (G. Gonzalez, D. Brownlee, and P.D. Ward, “The Galactic Habitable Zone: Galactic Chemical Evolution”, Icarus 152 (2001):185-200) came from that scientific research.

The authors make predictions. For example if/ when we discover other complex life is found elsewhere in the universe, the many factors observed here will also be present there. And that life will be carbon based.

“The same narrow circumstances that allow us to exist 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.

Other G. Gonzalez papers that were the basis of the book (just skimming through the references):
“Stars, Planets, and Metals”, Reviews of Modern Physics 75 (2003)101-120
“Rummaging Through Earth’s Attic for Remains of Ancient Life”, Icarus 160 (2002) 183-196
“Is the Sun Anomalous?”, Astronomy and Geophysics 40, no. 5 (1999):5.25-5.29
“Are Stars with Planets Anomalous?”, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 308 (1999): 447-458
“Impact Reseeding During the Late Heavy Bombardment”, Icarus 162 (2003):38-46
“Parent Stars of Extrasolar Planets III: p Cancri Revisited”, Astronomy and Astrophysics 339 (1998): L29-L32
“Stellar Atmospheres of Nearby Young Solar Analogs”, New Astronomy 7 (2002): 211-226


Chapter 16 offers a “Skeptical Rejoinder” answering the following 14 objections:

1) It’s impossible to falsify your argument.

“The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment that, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment.. The opposite of this would have the same effect- finding an extremely habitable and inhabited place that was a lousy platform for observation.”

2) It’s inevitable. Whatever environment we found ourselves in, we would find examples conducive to its measurability.

“…we are able to compare the measurability of our environment with that of other environment. For the discoveries we have made, we can reflect on the conditions necessary for such discoveries, and then compare those conditions with conditions in other settings. For instance, it’s unquestionable that a relatively transparent atmosphere is more conducive to astronomical curiosity and discovery than is a murky (translucent) or opaque one. We know that, at least in our Solar System, such an atmosphere is rare.”

3) Well, then, it’s just a selection effect of a different sort. There are phenomena we cannot observe and measure. The argument is biased toward measurable phenomena.

“Contrary to the claims of the anti-realist, who doubts the existence of external truth, scientists aren’t locked in a Kantian box where everything we perceive in the universe is primarily the product of our perception. There are many things we have difficulty measuring, and we realize that fact. For instance, we can’t determine the distance and properties of some astronomical objects. But we know they exist, since we can detect them either directly or indirectly, and we know that we don’t know their distances or many of their intrinsic properties. We can compare the objects in this category with the objects we can both detect and measure, and make generalizations about our ability to measure generally.
Similarly, we are not so bereft of imagination that we can conceive only of those things we directly perceive. If nature is regular in its operation, which we have every reason to believe, then we have some justification for extrapolating what we don’t see from what we do see. Theory often predicts the existence of certain objects prior to their discovery, such as additional planets, white dwarfs, black holes, the cosmic background radiation, and neutrinos. For fairly secure theories, we can imagine what conditions would allow us to detect such objects. We can then determine whether our environment allows us to do so and compare it with other settings in the universe. And this has happened numerous times in the past. It is striking how often physicists are able to detect entities that are initially predicted for theoretical reasons.”

4) You’re cherry-picking. You have used a biased sample to argue for correlation.

“This is always a danger with any general hypothesis like the one we’re proposing. When a theorist is looking over a large body of data, it’s always possible that he will pick out the pieces that form an intriguing pattern and ignore the pieces that don’t. As a result, when the data are considered in their entirety, the pattern dissolves. Any argument involving many different scientific disciplines is especially susceptible to such a danger, since it’s impossible to consider every piece of relevant data.
For this reason, we have intentionally chosen important examples from each of the scientific disciplines we’ve considered. We haven’t chosen obscure experiments or conditions of measurability that have little importance for science. For instance, it’s difficult to overestimate the importance of a transparent atmosphere and visible stars for astronomy, or sedimentary processes for geology. Any astrophysicist would admit the historical importance of perfect solar eclipses in the development of stellar physics. No cosmologist would deny the importance of detecting redshift of distant galaxies, or the cosmic background radiation for our knowledge of the history of the universe. Moreover, as we noted in the previous chapter, other scientists have noticed evidence of the correlation, although none have developed the argument as we have. This makes it less likely that we’re creating the correlation out of thin air.
This is an important objection nevertheless, because it would be one way to falsify the claim that there is a correlation between habitability and measurability. If our hypothesis is correct, the correlation will continue to be confirmed not only in areas we have considered but also in areas we haven’t considered. We are convinced that there are still many important discoveries awaiting us- some we can anticipate, some we cannot. At the risk of being wrong, we would be willing to predict that an identifiable subset of gamma ray bursts will one day be found to be useful standard candles. The only reason we have for predicting this is that if the correlation is real, gamma ray bursts would be prime candidates for helping us measure the universe. Perhaps they will allow tomorrow’s astronomers to probe even greater redshifts than we can with Type Ia supernovae today.
Another such prediction concerns evidence of early life. As we mentioned in Chapter Three, Earth’s geophysical processes have erased much of the early history of life. If measurability and discoverability are optimized from our vantage point, however, then we might expect that such information will be preserved somewhere accessible to us. The origin of life is a particularly important question. It would be surprising, assuming the correlation, if it could not be investigated. In fact, we might predict that such evidence is available somewhere, if we search diligently enough. It was precisely this prediction that led one of us (Guillermo) to consider the value of lunar exploration for uncovering relatively well-preserved relics of Earthly life from this early period. Finally, we’re willing to predict that since carbon and oxygen appear so often among our examples of measurability, they will be central characters in future discoveries as well.
Of course, if we’re right about these predictions, this would not prove our position but only further support it. If we’re wrong, conversely, it would not destroy our argument but would put a dent in it. But clearly our argument has a predictive dimension. In contrast, the Copernican and Anthropic Principles in their most unrestrained manifestations seem much less useful. Positing the existence of multiple universes, for instance, doesn’t offer many fecund research programs within our universe. It looks designed primarily to foreclose certain unwelcome metaphysical possibilities.”



5) Your argument is too speculative. It is based on guesses and a thin empirical base.

“Most of the examples we have selected are based on well-understood phenomena, and they are founded on abundant empirical evidence. Examples include the properties of our atmosphere, solar eclipses, sedimentation processes, tectonic processes, the characteristics of the planets in the Solar System, stellar spectra, stellar structure, and our place in the Milky Way galaxy. Some of our other examples have a weaker empirical base, because of the rapid acquisition of knowledge in certain fields. This new knowledge includes extrasolar planets, additional requirements for habitability, and a host of insights in the field of cosmology. But even in these examples our arguments have a reasonable theoretical basis.
Where our discussions are speculative, we have identified them as such. Thus, our discussion of the Circumstellar Habitable Zone, and all the factors that go into defining it, contain speculative elements, as does our discussion of the Galactic Habitable Zone. While we can’t yet estimate the precise boundaries of these habitable zones, present published studies are almost certainly missing many relevant factors, which, when eventually included, will reduce their sizes, and strengthen our argument. Notice, again, we are going out on a limb here and making predictions, which makes our argument vulnerable to future discoveries.”



6) Your argument is too subjective. It lacks the quantitative precision necessary to make a convincing case.



7) How can you have a correlation with a sample size of one?

“While it is true that Earth is the only example we have of a habitable planet, this does not prevent us from finding a correlation between habitability and measurability. First, our argument is not based merely on the particulars of our home planet and the life we know about. We have argued that life in the universe will almost surely resemble life on Earth, at least at the biochemical level, and a planet very much like ours is probably required for technological life. Starting with these basics, we have used knowledge from a broad range of disciplines to consider a broad range of environments. Discovering a correlation between habitability and measurability, then, is based on our knowledge, not our ignorance.
For example, with knowledge of stellar astrophysics and climatology, we cab ask whether a planet around an M dwarf is more or less habitable and offers more or less opportunity for discovery than Earth. Similarly, with our knowledge of galactic astronomy, we can ask how position in the Milky Way affects habitability and the measurability of the local and distant universe.”

And while Earth is the only habitable planet there are 9 planets and many moons that we can use for local comparisons

8) Since life needs complexity, the correlation is trivial. The greater the complexity, the greater the chance for a correlation between habitability and measurability.

9) There may be separate pathways significantly different from ours leading to equally habitable environments.

10) Your argument is bad for science because it encourages skepticism about cosmology.

11) General Relativity appears to be a superfluous law of nature, which is not obviously required for habitability. Yet it is an important part of science. Does this not contradict the correlation?

12) The correlation isn’t mystical or supernatural, since it’s the result of natural processes.

13) You haven’t really challenged naturalism. You’ve just challenged the idea that nature doesn’t exhibit purpose or design.

14) You haven’t shown that ETs don’t exist.

“This is true, but we did not intend to. In fact, ironically, design might even improve the possibility of ETs.”

Well, yeah…

Stars:

Total number estimated in the Milky Way- 100 billion
Over 80% are low-mass red dwarfs (most likely lack a habitable zone)
1-2% are massive short-lived blue giants
Only about 4% of the stars are early G-type, main-sequence stars like our Sun
50% of those are in binary systems
Then we have to consider what % of those are in the Galactic Habitable Zone

Earth-like planets:

We now know that our solar system is not typical
We do know other planets exist
At least 4% of Sun-like stars have giant planets at least as massive as Jupiter.

Then we have the factors required for a planet to host complex life-
Summary:

Within the Galactic Habitable Zone
Within the Circumstellar Habitable Zone
Liquid water
Orbit a Spectral type G2 dwarf main sequence star
Protected by gas giants
Nearly circular orbit-
Oxygen rich
Correct mass
Large moon to stabilize the angle of rotation
Moderate rate of rotation
Terrestrial planet
Ratio of water to continents
Plate tectonic re-cycling
Magnetic field
Both plate tectonics and the magnetic field require the core have enough heat to keep it liquid. The convection currents mix the minerals before recycling and also produce the required magnetic field as it flows around the iron inner core.
The Earth’s orbit is slightly elliptical. When the Earth is closest to the Sun (perigee) the southern hemisphere is enjoying summer, i.e. the Earth’s axis of rotation has the southern hemisphere at a better angle (than the northern hemisphere) towards the Sun for absorbing its vital rays. The Earth has the bulk of its continents in the northern hemisphere. Water stores the heat and then transfers it around the globe.

58 Comments:

  • At 2:51 PM, Blogger Dazza McTrazza said…

    It was Gonzalez’s paper “Wonderful Eclipses,” Astronomy & Geophysics 40, no. 3 (1999): 3.18- 3.20), that peaked the book’s co-author’s (Jay Richards) interest.

    The word I think you're looking for is piqued. Although, I must say that my interest in your blog troughed quite quickly after reading this.

     
  • At 4:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Dazza McTrazza:
    The word I think you're looking for is piqued.

    No. Jay's interest was already piqued. That paper brought it to a maximum, ie peaked.

    Dazza McTrazza:
    Although, I must say that my interest in your blog troughed quite quickly after reading this.

    That usually happens when one just can't understand what was posted.

     
  • At 7:59 PM, Blogger secondclass said…

    "Peak" is an intransitive verb. It makes no sense to "peak" something.

    Admitting a spelling error requires a bare minimum of integrity, but apparently that's expecting too much from you.

     
  • At 10:47 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Are you people just stupid?

    Do either of you know how to use a dictionary?

    As I said Jay's interest was already piqued. The Gonzalez paper "Wonderful Eclipses" brought that (piqued) interest to a maximum (peaked).

    Did you even read my initial response? My use of the word was explained.

    Have you ever been involved in anything athletic? Swimmers and runners, for example, do not want to peak too early, ie before the big races. They want to peak just at the right time.

    But I doubt you would know or understand anything about that type of shit.

    Ya see secondclass, there is no reason to withhold anything you post. You make making my case much easier.

     
  • At 12:41 AM, Blogger secondclass said…

    Okay, I get it. You don't know what an intransitive verb is. That's okay, really.

     
  • At 8:39 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OK I get it. secondclass doesn't have control of the English language so he thinks that no one does.

    I even explained it. When swimmers peak to early and don't finish the season strong they say "He/ She peaked too soon." Peaked in this sense, as well as the sense I used it, means brought to a maximum. BTW that is EXACTLY what I stated in my response to Dazza.

    However it is not OK, really, that secondclass can't grasp the concept, especially one as simple and spelled out, as this is.

    However it is obvious that if he can't grasp a simple concept like this then it is a given that he won't grasp anything to do with science.

     
  • At 10:42 AM, Blogger secondclass said…

    Originally you used "peak" as an transitive verb, which is incorrect. Now you're using it as an intransitive verb, which is correct.

     
  • At 10:48 AM, Blogger secondclass said…

    You were right; I was wrong. Looking at the other definition in the same online dictionary shows that it's a transitive verb also. I apologize for doubting you.

     
  • At 11:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Just so that everyone is clear:

    peak:

    verb: to reach the highest point; attain maximum intensity, activity (Example: "That wild, speculative spirit peaked in 1929")

    But I again I would like to thank Dazza, secondclass nad blipey for demonstrating exactly what type person that I am dealing with.

    Thank you. Thank you very much.

    Seriously, if they can't even understand simple sentences, what hope is there that they will understand ID or anything I post about it?

    Hopefully none of this is lost on any readers.

     
  • At 11:33 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    For the definition provided just check the link's right-hand column of "Quick definitions", first verb.

    Thanks.

     
  • At 9:26 PM, Blogger secondclass said…

    verb: to reach the highest point; attain maximum intensity, activity (Example: "That wild, speculative spirit peaked in 1929")

    FYI, I think the definition you're looking for is the transitive one, since that's how you used the word.

     
  • At 9:48 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    FYI, I really don't give a rat's ass what you think. I know the meaning I was trying to convey and I understand that to intelligent people it was.

     
  • At 1:40 AM, Blogger secondclass said…

    FYI, I really don't give a rat's ass what you think.

    Of course you don't, and you might want to consider a possible connection between your demeanor and the fact that virtually nobody participates on your blog.

    Your usage was transitive. Your stated definition was intransitive. That's not "what I think". It's a fact.

     
  • At 7:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I would say that few people participate on my blog because they do not want to get their ass kicked.

    Main Entry: 2peak
    Function: verb
    intransitive verb : to reach a maximum (as of capacity, value, or activity) -- often used with out
    transitive verb : to cause to come to a peak, point, or maximum

    Wow imagine that! The usage AND definition are transitive. And if you bother to read my response to Dazza my usage is just as defined.

    And perhaps if people wouldn't come here, post and defend stupid comments my demeanor would change.

     
  • At 1:48 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    I think the readers would also take notice of the times when both blipey and secondclass acknowledged their mistakes and moved on.

    The readers should also notice that Joe G never acknowledged their redactions and continued to be a prick--which was secondclass's last point.

    My bad; there are no readers.

     
  • At 4:38 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    I think the readers would also take notice of the times when both blipey and secondclass acknowledged their mistakes and moved on.

    I am sure the readers notice that everything you post is a mistake in some fashion.

    And yes I am also sure that the readers can see that I fight fire with fire, water, oxygen deprivation and every means at my disposal.

    I am very sure that the readers have figured out that neither of you have a point beyond that which forms the top of your bitty heads.

     
  • At 10:45 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    I see the pharmacology industry is missing a large source of potential income here.

     
  • At 9:12 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes it is true that you, Dazza and secondclass should be taking a whole catalog of meds.

    Are you saying that you have stopped taking yours?

    That explains quite a bit.

     
  • At 11:34 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Once again--can't write your own jokes. Just stealing the professional's material. Tsk, tsk. If you're ever in town, sign up for my class, you could use it.

     
  • At 12:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Once again- spewing incoherent and unsubstantiated accusations.

    blipey, one thing is for sure- YOU don't have any class. Pencil-neck geeks like you don't have any use for it.

     
  • At 1:59 PM, Blogger secondclass said…

    Main Entry: 2peak
    Function: verb
    intransitive verb : to reach a maximum (as of capacity, value, or activity) -- often used with out
    transitive verb : to cause to come to a peak, point, or maximum

    Wow imagine that! The usage AND definition are transitive.


    Yes, now that you've changed to a different definition, as I suggested, the definition is transitive.

    Of course, your usage here is intransitive:

    Did you even read my initial response? My use of the word was explained.

    Have you ever been involved in anything athletic? Swimmers and runners, for example, do not want to peak too early, ie before the big races. They want to peak just at the right time.


    You switched from transitive usage to intransitive usage (apparently without realizing it) and from an intransitive definition to a transitive definition.

    I would say that few people participate on my blog because they do not want to get their ass kicked.

    I don't doubt it for a minute. Your arguments are so rock solid that I wonder why you didn't rescue the ID side in Dover. And I wonder why you don't become the first IDist to submit a defense of Dembski's work to a math or science journal, thus providing Dembski a foot in the door of those communities.

     
  • At 5:41 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Your arguments are so rock solid that I wonder why you didn't rescue the ID side in Dover.

    Umm the ID side didn't need rescuing at Dover. It is obvious the Dover school board didn't know squat about ID, and lied about many aspects of what they were doing. The judge didn't even listen to the ID experts and judged all of ID on the actions of the Dover school board.

    If I were involved the outcome would have been different. And I am working to make that happen.

    As for my usage of the word "peaked"- it is correct. And it is not lost that you would rather continue this stupidity rather than deal with the post.

     
  • At 6:47 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes, now that you've changed to a different definition, as I suggested, the definition is transitive.

    Umm the definition has remained the same:

    No. Jay's interest was already piqued. That paper brought it to a maximum, ie peaked.

    transitive verb : to cause to come to a peak, point, or maximum

    IOW my usage was correct from the very beginning, both Dazza and secondclass were too stupid to understand that usage, so they had to attack me.

    That wasn't enough. Once secondclass understood that error he had to compound it by accusing me of incorrect usage. Even after it was demonstrated the usage was OK he still couldn't leave it alone.

    You are a tribute to losers all over the world.

     
  • At 8:16 PM, Blogger secondclass said…

    If I were involved the outcome would have been different.

    No doubt.

    And I am working to make that happen.

    The way to establish a hypothesis as a scientific theory is well known. Test it, and submit the results to science journals. Is that what you're doing?

    Umm the definition has remained the same

    Then you must think that transitive verbs are the same as intransitive verbs.

    Even after it was demonstrated the usage was OK he still couldn't leave it alone.

    I was wrong in saying that "peaked" has no transitive definition. You were wrong in using an intransitive definition and intransitive examples to support your transitive usage. And you're wrong to claim that "the definition has remained the same" when, in fact, you switched definitions.

    I'll drop it when you do.

     
  • At 12:25 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe G (commenting on the Dover Trial):

    If I were involved the outcome would have been different. And I am working to make that happen.

    Interesting. I think we have the first possible research area for ID. It seems that Joe, using ID technologies, will be able to turn back time and change the outcome of the Dover Trial.

    I'm sure I'm wrong, but that sure is what Joe just said. Cue Joe telling us that his sentence doesn't mean what his sentence means.

     
  • At 12:28 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe:

    Once again- spewing incoherent and unsubstantiated accusations.

    I'll make it simpler since you don't have any regard for the possible intelligence of any unlikely readers that may happen by.

    I said you stole material. Hardly incoherent. It means you're a thief.

    I refer to your comment directly above the one I wrote. Your material (a joke if you must) was merely a rip-off of my comment above that one. Hardly unsubstantiated, get a dictionary.

     
  • At 8:41 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The way to establish a hypothesis as a scientific theory is well known. Test it, and submit the results to science journals. Is that what you're doing?

    Wow. There isn't any way to objectively test the premise that chimps and humans shared a common ancestor and I know there isn't anything in any journals about it.

    As a matter of fact most of what evolutionists spew is beyond testing and won't be found in any science journals.

    So if the reigning paradigm doesn't need what secondclass says then why does any alternative?

    Umm the definition has remained the same.

    Then you must think that transitive verbs are the same as intransitive verbs.

    I don't and it isn't necessary. I used the transitive definition.

    And you're wrong to claim that "the definition has remained the same" when, in fact, you switched definitions.

    Reality says I used the correct definition and that I never switched.

    Jay's interest was already piqued. That paper brought it to a maximum, ie peaked.

    transitive verb : to cause to come to a peak, point, or maximum

    To people with an IQ over 50 the case is closed.

     
  • At 8:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey, I was NOT joking. You should be taking your meds.

    And it takes real genius to take an intended slam and turn it back on the sender but with greater effect.

    I think we have the first possible research area for ID.

    LoL! You shouldn't think. ID already has research areas. And IDists are pursuing them.

     
  • At 8:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    I see the pharmacology industry is missing a large source of potential income here.


    Yes it is true that you, Dazza and secondclass should be taking a whole catalog of meds.

    Are you saying that you have stopped taking yours?

    That explains quite a bit.


    Imagine that! Reality demonstrates I did NOT steal anything!!! Reality demonstrates that I merely expanded on what was provided.

    Real geniuses can do stuff like that. That is part of our make-up.

     
  • At 9:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    It seems that Joe, using ID technologies, will be able to turn back time and change the outcome of the Dover Trial.

    No need to turn back time in order to get a court's decision overturned.

    And one thing is for sure- my sentences rarely ever mean what you think they do.

    When I say:

    If I were involved the outcome would have been different. And I am working to make that happen.

    it means that I am working on making my involvement happen. Anyone with an IQ over 50 would have understood that.

     
  • At 1:28 PM, Blogger secondclass said…

    Joe earlier: verb: to reach the highest point; attain maximum intensity, activity (Example: "That wild, speculative spirit peaked in 1929")

    Joe later: transitive verb : to cause to come to a peak, point, or maximum

    Joe now: Reality says I used the correct definition and that I never switched.

    Michael Pallin: It IS!
    John Cleese: It is NOT!
    Michael Pallin: You just contradicted me!
    John Cleese: No I didn't!

    Well, Joe, it's been fun taking a tour of your Bizzaro World where black is white, circles are square, threats aren't threats, responses to challenges aren't responses to challenges, transitive is intransitive, right is wrong, a decision node that says "HP?" doesn't really say "HP?", a probability measure isn't a probability measure, the word "strawman" means something other than what it means, and pretending that you didn't say something means that you didn't say it.

    As delusional as your illogic is, your biggest delusion is your self-importance. For you to think that people don't participate in your blog "because they do not want to get their ass kicked" and that you would have changed the outcome of Dover is beyond hilarious.

    But like most spectacles, you get boring fast. It was fun to laugh at your antics for a while, but in order to age well, humor has to be intelligent.

    I'm sure my departure will feed your bravado, but I'm not too worried about it given that your credibility is virtually nil, even in your own camp. I'm guessing that the number of IDers who have read your blog and don't consider you an embarrassment could be counted on one hand. So crow away in your response. One thing that's certain is that I won't waste my time reading it, or anything else you write.

     
  • At 2:25 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    For you to think that people don't participate in your blog "because they do not want to get their ass kicked" and that you would have changed the outcome of Dover is beyond hilarious.

    Yup, sometimes reality is funny. They say it (reality) can be stranger than fiction.

    Now we know how babies react when shown to be wrong.

    I knew you wouldn't last here. Now run along and pollute some other blog.

     
  • At 4:12 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    threats aren't threats,

    Alleged threats aren't threats

    responses to challenges aren't responses to challenges,

    Alleged responses to challenges. If a response doesn't address the challenge is it really a response to it?

    transitive is intransitive,

    Umm that is YOUR mistake.

    a decision node that says "HP?" doesn't really say "HP?",

    RotFLMAO! Just because a decision node labeled "HP?" does not mean that is the only question we ask at that node. And it doesn't mean that has to be the first question either.

    a probability measure isn't a probability measure

    CSI isn't a probability measure. If it were than the EF would be about probability alone. However we know that isn't so.

    I'm guessing that the number of IDers who have read your blog and don't consider you an embarrassment could be counted on one hand.

    I guess that explains why I have been asked to author on other pro-ID blogs.

     
  • At 12:58 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    And it takes real genius to take an intended slam and turn it back on the sender but with greater effect.

    Well, even granting that this is true, you are not that genius.

    As for not stealing, hmmm. You said you expanded on my theme. This means that you must have appropriated my theme in the first place to have something to work from (by your own admission). Appropriation is stealing; ask any working entertainer. Oh yeah, you hate them, don't bother.

     
  • At 6:16 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    Well, even granting that this is true, you are not that genius.

    Yes, I am.

    You said you expanded on my theme.

    I took what you said, expanded on it and turned it into something funny, even though I meant it seriously.

    This means that you must have appropriated my theme in the first place to have something to work from (by your own admission).

    See above.

    ask any working entertainer.

    Why? What do they know?

    Ya see blipey YOU provided the theme. I didn't steal it.

    But thanks for once again exposing your stupidity.

     
  • At 7:17 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Oh yeah, you hate them, don't bother.

    Odd. I never said nor implied that I hated anyone.

    Once again blipey's twisted little mind has to invent something to make it feel better.

     
  • At 11:11 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    I really enjoy the amount of science on this blog.

     
  • At 6:44 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I really enjoy the amount of science on this blog.

    "The Privileged Planet" is loaded with science. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

    I also wouldn't expect a clown to even understand science if it read it. Clowns and science just don't mix.

    However it is noce that you have stopped your nonsensical accusations.

     
  • At 1:47 PM, Blogger Dazza McTrazza said…

    No. Jay's interest was already piqued. That paper brought it to a maximum, ie peaked.

    Really?! And where, pray tell did you mention that? Or am I just too stupid to be able to understand your telepathic writing powers?

    In essence, you are either:

    (a) a bad writer (by skipping points that would leave your grammatical usage unambiguous),
    (b) a bad writer (from not knowing the difference between piqued and peaked); or
    (c) a bit of an arsehole (for not being able to admit a mistake).

    Surely even an IDist can complete a multiple choice test like the one above? Or do I have to throw a God option in too?

     
  • At 3:02 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No. Jay's interest was already piqued. That paper brought it to a maximum, ie peaked.

    Really?! And where, pray tell did you mention that?

    I didn't realize that I had to. It would have been obvious by either

    A) reading the book

    or

    B) watching the video

    However something must be bad in order for some anonymous butthead to jump in and falsely accuse me of something that was rather easily explainable.

    Ya see if something appears ambiguous then the correct course of action would be to ask for clarification. You didn't but I provided it anyway. Now you have an issue with that.

    And in the end the issue you have has to do with your ID ignorance. That seems to be a very common issue these days.

     
  • At 9:43 AM, Blogger Dazza McTrazza said…

    And in the end the issue you have has to do with your ID ignorance. That seems to be a very common issue these days.

    Yes it does - perhaps because nobody really cares what a bunch of cranks who think they understand science say about one of the most well-established theories in biology.

    However something must be bad in order for some anonymous butthead to jump in and falsely accuse me of something that was rather easily explainable.

    Well, firstly, I'm only as anonymous as you - since, as your comment box states, This blog does not allow anonymous comments. I also notice you failed my multiple choice test - a bit of a trend for IDists, failing tests, no? Furthermore, nothing's "bad" - I just enjoy prodding imbeciles, much like children throw peanuts at animals at the zoo. The undeniable pleasure of a dumb animal roaring at you from an impotent distance is too much to let slide.

    Plus, without all of the people laughing at you, who the hell would ever read this blog? :)

     
  • At 12:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes it does - perhaps because nobody really cares what a bunch of cranks who think they understand science say about one of the most well-established theories in biology.

    People should care what experts in the field say. Also if the theory of evolution were so well established I would still be an evolutionist. I would also bet that ID would have stayed buried- that is if it were so well established.


    I also notice you failed my multiple choice test -

    Then you also lack observational skills.

    Furthermore, nothing's "bad" - I just enjoy prodding imbeciles, much like children throw peanuts at animals at the zoo.

    All the evidence so far demonstrates that you are an imbecile. So why do you enjoy prodding yourself?

    To me kids throwing peanuts at the animals is feeding them. Or are you saying the kids are prodding them to eat by providing a stimulus?


    And thanks- people usually laugh at that which is too far over their heads to understand. And the people who laugh at me are perhaps the most imbecilic this planet has ever hosted. They are also proven intellectual cowards- you know the people who cannot focus on the topic but instead have to pick on some non-existent gramatical error.

     
  • At 12:07 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    In essence you are either:

    A) stupid
    B) an imbecile
    C) Hopelessly ignorant
    D) an intellectual coward
    E) All of the above

     
  • At 12:59 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe:

    I also notice you failed my multiple choice test -

    Then you also lack observational skills.


    Uh, you did fail, Joe. You posted no answer. That means your score is 0 out of a possible 1. That is 0.0%, a failure on any grading scale.

    Well, back to the zoo office to get another stick.

     
  • At 2:25 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Uh, blipey, it wasn't a test. It was just Dazza exposing his stupidity- again.

    And the following was the answer:

    It would have been obvious by either

    A) reading the book

    or

    B) watching the video


    Which I expaned on with:

    Ya see if something appears ambiguous then the correct course of action would be to ask for clarification. You didn't but I provided it anyway. Now you have an issue with that.

    And in the end the issue you have has to do with your ID ignorance. That seems to be a very common issue these days.


    Ya see smart people would look up the word used and see if any of the definitions fit the usage. Obviously that is too much to ask of imbeciles like Dazza, secondclass, and a dumbass clown like yourself.

    But it is good to see that my imbecile bait works.

     
  • At 11:24 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Uh, no Joe. Your answer was not included in the answer set. You made up an answer. You can't do that in multiple choice tests, Joe. Probably not even where you went to school, but I guess they might do things different in the hills of stupid.

     
  • At 8:24 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Now I understand your talent blipey. You can type while your head is up your ass.

    But anyway- this isn’t a school, dazza mctrazza is a proven imbecile, and I reserve the right to correct imbecilic nonsense as I encounter it. You know about that first hand.

    Seeing that the imbecile couldn't provide the correct I answer, I stepped in to do just that. That is what intellectually superior people do- correct the mistakes of imbeciles.

     
  • At 12:02 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Gee, Joe, you must be the smartest person in the whole world. Wonder why nobody has figured that out?

    You should be a federal judge, or the President, or a lead researcher at NIH, or something.

    You did float your resume, right?

     
  • At 2:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Gee, Joe, you must be the smartest person in the whole world.

    Smarter than you, anyway.

    Wonder why nobody has figured that out?

    I am sure that everyone who has read your drivel has figured out that you are stupid.

    You should be a federal judge, or the President, or a lead researcher at NIH, or something.

    I am something.

     
  • At 1:55 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    I am sure that everyone who has read your drivel has figured out that you are stupid.

    Wow. I direct a comment toward you as the subject. You ignoe this, and then take the sentence to mean someting entirely different.

    I would think that this is strange behavor, but then I recall that this is you.

    Way to evade. Way to evade.

     
  • At 8:04 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I direct a comment toward you as the subject.

    I don't care what you do or say blipey. It is obvious you can't even stay on-topic.

    IOW all YOU do is to evade, and evade at all costs.

    Everyone knows that is strange behavior- that is until they consider the source- an ignorant freak of a clown.

    Why is that blipey? Why is it that you cannot respond on topic?

    I say it is because you are either:

    A) Too stupid
    B) Ignorant
    C) a waste of skin
    D) All of the above

    Now surely a even a lowlife clown can complete that multiple choice test.

     
  • At 12:37 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Oh wait, wait! I studied multipple choice test taking under the tutelage of the great Joe G! I got this one.

    Answer: Because I did and Joe can't actually answer a question I proposed on my first comment in any given thread.

    I got it! I got it! See, when the correct answer isn't presented it is the responsibility of the knowledgable to provide it. Isn't that right, Joe?

     
  • At 3:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey fails again! No surprise though.

    Ya see blipey you have never responded on topic- not to any of my blog entries anyway.

    IOW even though you provided an answer reality demonstrates it is far from correct. And actually it is a lie. But that is what I expect from a freak like you.

    You are obviously incapable of doing so- staying on topic. Instead, like all mental midgets, you have to pick on non-existent grammatical errors.

     
  • At 9:38 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Hey Joe,

    Do you use the word "reality" so much because you have to in order not to float away?

     
  • At 7:58 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey, I use the word "reality" because it is obvious that you and your ilk are clueless about it.

    IOW reality always seems to go against what you post.

     
  • At 11:44 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    It was rhetorical, Joe. And chalk up 2 more usages.

     
  • At 11:58 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Reality demonstrates you are maniacal, blipey.

     
  • At 3:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey the cupcake

     

Post a Comment

<< Home