Intelligent Reasoning

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

Thursday, January 24, 2008

If you really don't want to hear from me again, here is what you need to do

So, when is your court date? I want to see it from the front row. Then, when it's over, I can laugh at the fact I'll never be hearing of you again.-blipey the clueless clown


blipey is clueless because Courts cannot keep me quite- even if I went to trial for introducing ID to public schools and lost. Courts cannot and do not rule over what is and isn't science.

The only way to keep me quiet is to actually find a way to objectively test the theory of evolution. IOW start by coming up with a working hypothesis for stochastic processes- in biology that means a hypothesis that includes culled genetic accidents as the prime cause of diversity.

Ya see if I go to Court over ID the opposition is going to be asked to produce that hypothesis. They are also going to be asked to provide the genetic data that accounts for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between allegedly closely related species such as chimps and humans.

Not only that but any claims made by the opposition that ID is religious will also have to be answered. That means demonstrating that ID says who, when, where, how and why to worship (good luck with that), as well as explaining how their position doesn't require anything beyond nature when it is obvious that natural processes only exist in nature and therefore could not have been responsible for its origins.

Yes, blipey, it will be fun to watch the opposition squirm in their seats when asked to support their position with scientific data when in reality all evolutionitwits can do is to point to minor variations and throw time in the mix to magically get the diversity of life.

It would also be interesting, that is if Barbara Forrest testifies again, if the following could be substantiated (From the Kitzmiller v Dover SB, 10/06/05 AM session, referring to Dr Behe Q is the defense attorney Mr Thompson; A is Barbara Forrest):

Q. He doesn't use religious terms to describe
11 these biological systems, does he?

12 A. No, not in those descriptions. When he is
13 referring to "design," though, that is a religious
14 term.


Forrest follows that with:

Q. That wasn't my question.

16 A. When he introduces that into his discussion,
17 then that would be a religious term.


Since when did "design" become a religious term? Did she really mean that?

18 Q. But that wasn't my question, was it?

19 A. In specific places in the book, yes, he does
20 speak about it in a scientific fashion.

21 Q. My question was, when he discusses the blood

22 clotting cascade, does he discuss that in scientific
23 terms? And your answer was yes, as I understand it.

24 A. I said when he introduces the concept of
25 design, then he's introducing it as a religious term.


Yes she did!!! That would never pass in any trial I am affiliated with. I would make sure the attorney hammered her on that.

And once we were finished exposing the strawman version of ID they are attacking it would become obvious as to why ID needs to be at least presented in schools- to prevent the blatant lies and misrepresentations (strawman arguments that have been refuted 1,000 times) that the evolutionitwits have been spreading unabated. IOW the evolutionitwits will be exposed for the intellectual cowardice that goes hand-in-hand with their Nazi thought police tactics.

88 Comments:

  • At 3:40 PM, Blogger rishy said…

    So, you think we were all put here by god? Or not? If yes, then you are just a moron. If not, then WTF are you doing?

    Can't have it both ways.

    Oh, and thanks for not posting my post of a few days ago calling for an end to nastiness, and a shutdown of this ridiculous blog.

     
  • At 4:00 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So, you think we were all put here by god? Or not? If yes, then you are just a moron. If not, then WTF are you doing?

    Why is anyone a moron for thinking we are part of "God's" Special Creation?

    What if the designer isn't "God"? ID doesn't require a belief in "God".

    Do you think we owe our existence to sheer dumb luck (that is the anti-ID materialistic position)? If so you are a moron.

    Oh, and thanks for not posting my post of a few days ago calling for an end to nastiness, and a shutdown of this ridiculous blog.

    Your entry was irrelevant, off-topic, and the nastiness can be traced back to evolutionitwits, like you.

    Ya see buckwheat you failed to address blipey's post to which I was responding. When you do something like that you just further expose your ignorance driven intentions.

    As for the accusation of this being a "ridiculous blog", what do you base that on- besides your ignorance?

     
  • At 4:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW rishy,

    If you REALLY want to "shutdown this ridiculous blog" all you have to do is:

    to actually find a way to objectively test the theory of evolution. IOW start by coming up with a working hypothesis for stochastic processes- in biology that means a hypothesis that includes culled genetic accidents as the prime cause of diversity.

    Show me how the genetic differences observed between chimps and humans can be linked to the physiological and anatomical differences observed.

    That should be easy to do, that is unless the theory of evolution is NOT founded on scientific data.

     
  • At 5:44 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So who designed the designing space alien, Joe? God? Apparently not. Just some designer. But then, who designed him? Oops.

     
  • At 5:47 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    At some point, "design" as used by IDiots resolves to a religious meaning. If not, please tell me at which level of designer natural agencies started to evolve things just as the ToE predicts. Is it 2 levels above us that evolution takes place? Three? Just one? If evolution never took place, then how would you define the first designer?

    God?

    Apparently not. That's a truly strange concept:

    The universe was created by something that was not of this universe, but that something was not a supernatural being.

    Care to explain why you believe that?

     
  • At 10:39 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe:

    When you quote someone you're only supposed to use the words they used. I'm pretty sure I didn't use the wors "-blipey the clueless clown".

    I know you're a creationist and all, so I'm giving you a heads up so you can improve your accuracy.

     
  • At 8:08 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So who designed the designing space alien, Joe?

    What space alien?

    God? Apparently not. Just some designer. But then, who designed him? Oops.

    Your ignorance is still showing clowny. Not only has that ignorance-driven question been answered I am sure I have already made you aware of that:

    Who designed the designer?:

    Who designed the designers of Stonehenge blipey?

    At some point, "design" as used by IDiots resolves to a religious meaning.

    You are the idiot blipey. So tell us how your use of "design" resolves into a religious meaning.

    And if you are referring to IDists then please by all means make your case.

    Just your saying so doesn't make it so.

    Next you and your ignorant ilk will be saying that design engineers are really deities.

    Your stupidity knows no bounds.

    Thank you for continuing to expose that fact.

    If not, please tell me at which level of designer natural agencies started to evolve things just as the ToE predicts.

    The ToE doesn't make any predictions.

    The universe was created by something that was not of this universe, but that something was not a supernatural being.

    Not everything that is beyond nature has to be supernatural. And it is obvious that the universe requires something beyond it to account for it.

    Care to explain why you believe that?

    The other option is our existence is due to sheer dumb luck. Care to explain why YOU believe THAT?

    That position is about as unscientific as one can get. So I understand why you would choose it.

    When you quote someone you're only supposed to use the words they used.

    I did.

    I'm pretty sure I didn't use the wors "-blipey the clueless clown".

    Ummm that was NOT part of the quote.

     
  • At 8:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The universe was created by something that was not of this universe, but that something was not a supernatural being.

    That is the anti-ID position too you ignorant clown.

    Also please tell me why it is important to know where or how the designer came to be.

    Do we need to know about the designer(s) BEFORE reaching a design inference? Reality says "No".

    In fact reality dictates theat the only possible way to make any determination about the designer(s) or the specific process used, is by studying the design in question.

    "The conclusion that something was designed can be made quite independently of knowledge of the designer. As a matter of procedure, the design must first be apprehended before there can be any further question about the designer. The inference to design can be held with all firmness that is possible in this world, without knowing anything about the designer."—Dr Behe

    "As a scientific research program, intelligent design investigates the effects of intelligence and not intelligence as such."- Wm. Dembski page 33 of The Design Revolution

    Ya see clowny it is because of people like you that I included the following in the OP:

    And once we were finished exposing the strawman version of ID they are attacking it would become obvious as to why ID needs to be at least presented in schools- to prevent the blatant lies and misrepresentations (strawman arguments that have been refuted 1,000 times) that the evolutionitwits have been spreading unabated. IOW the evolutionitwits will be exposed for the intellectual cowardice that goes hand-in-hand with their Nazi thought police tactics.

     
  • At 8:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    One more question for clowny:

    In your anti-ID scenario did the laws that govern our universe just magically poof into existence?

     
  • At 5:03 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    We don't know (yet), Joe. But that doesn't mean "god", you bad god-of-the-gapsist.

     
  • At 10:03 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Who designed the designers of Stonehenge blipey?

    I don't know, Joe. My bet is nobody. What's your answer?

     
  • At 10:06 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe, when you blockquote something everything in the blockquote is considered to be a part of the quote. That's what a blockquote is for. You included "-blipey the clueless clown" in the blockquote.

    Just reading what you typed there, skippy. Again, I'm just trying to improve your accuracy. You can take the rest up with the MLA handbook or something.

     
  • At 10:08 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Not everything that is beyond nature has to be supernatural.

    Now that is entertaining. Supernatural = something that is beyond nature.

    Doing a little word substitution we get Joe's strange little world:

    Not everything that is beyond nature has to be beyond nature.

    Awesome.

     
  • At 8:25 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Who designed the designers of Stonehenge blipey?

    I don't know, Joe. My bet is nobody. What's your answer?

    The point is we don't have to know who designed the designers or if they were designed.

    Joe, when you blockquote something everything in the blockquote is considered to be a part of the quote.

    That is false. Everything after the hyphen is attributes- as in who the quote belongs to and can include a bibliography.

    Not everything that is beyond nature has to be supernatural.

    Now that is entertaining.

    It is also a fact.

    Supernatural = something that is beyond nature.

    Perhaps, but does something that is beyond nature = supernatural? Absolutely not.

    And IF everything beyond nature = the supernatural then even YOUR position also traces back to the supernatural (because it traces back to something beyond nature) and therefore is religious by YOUR standards.

    One more question for clowny:

    In your anti-ID scenario did the laws that govern our universe just magically poof into existence?

     
  • At 8:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    We don't know (yet), Joe.

    Then there isn't any reason to reject ID and force the materialistiv PoV on to unsuspecting students.

    But that doesn't mean "god",

    I agree and I hold the position that the designer is not "God".

    you bad god-of-the-gapsist.

    By your "logic" archaeology is a gap argument, as is forensic science and SETI.

     
  • At 8:44 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Doing a little word substitution we get Joe's strange little world:

    YOUR word substitution just further exposes your stupidity.

    Why do you wear your stupidity and ignorance as a badge of honor?

     
  • At 11:00 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    The point is we don't have to know who designed the designers or if they were designed.

    So, if they weren't designed...uh, well, hmmmm. Did they evolve?

     
  • At 11:01 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Supernatural = something that is beyond nature.

    Perhaps, but does something that is beyond nature = supernatural? Absolutely not.


    Care to define supernatural for us then, Joe?

     
  • At 11:04 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    And IF everything beyond nature = the supernatural then even YOUR position also traces back to the supernatural (because it traces back to something beyond nature) and therefore is religious by YOUR standards.

    My position does no such thing. We evolved by natural processes. The universe came into being, or always was, or fluctuates between being and non-being. I don't know--that's my position. Your position is God Did It.

     
  • At 1:58 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    SETI and Forensic science try to answer 'Who? Where? When? and How?"

    ID makes no such effort.

     
  • At 2:46 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    SETI and Forensic science try to answer 'Who? Where? When? and How?"

    The best SETI can do is "where"- as in where did the signal come from. Forensic science- the ONLY way to make any determination- the who, where, when and how- in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the "design" in question.

    Many times the who, where, when cannot be figured out. Only the how. And sometimes only a vague explanation of how is given.

    ID makes no such effort.

    And the theory of evolution doesn't make any effort to tell us WHAT mutations caused what changes. Not only that it says NOTHING about the origin of life even though the OoL directly impacts any subsequent evolution.

     
  • At 2:59 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The point is we don't have to know who designed the designers or if they were designed.

    So, if they weren't designed...uh, well, hmmmm. Did they evolve?

    Umm thanks again for exposing your ignorance. "Evolution" isn't being debated. It is the MECHANISM.

    And again you miss the obvious. That is we do not have to know anything about the designer(s) in order to first detect and then study the design.

    Supernatural = something that is beyond nature.

    Perhaps, but does something that is beyond nature = supernatural? Absolutely not.

    Care to define supernatural for us then, Joe?

    Buy a dictionary. I am OK with with the standard accepted definitions.

    However it is obvious you are too stupid to understand my point. Oh well, wallow in your stupidity. You and Richie are good at that.

    Hint- it isn't 'supernatural' that needs defining. It is anything else that could be beyond nature. YOU want to define everything that is beyond nature as supernatural, and that is just plain false.

    And IF everything beyond nature = the supernatural then even YOUR position also traces back to the supernatural (because it traces back to something beyond nature) and therefore is religious by YOUR standards.

    My position does no such thing.

    Yes it does pinhead. The universe had a beginning. Even in your scenario. Therefore even your position traces back to something beyond nature.

    We evolved by natural processes.

    Both design and intelligence are natural. Also there isn't any scientific data which shows humans evolved from something other than humans.

    The universe came into being, or always was, or fluctuates between being and non-being. I don't know--that's my position.

    If you don't know then you can't rule out Intelligent Design. And you surely cannot rule out the supernatural.

    Your position is God Did It.

    Wrong again. I'm not a religious person and Intelligent Design does not try to explain everything.

    One more question for clowny:

    In your anti-ID scenario did the laws that govern our universe just magically poof into existence?

     
  • At 3:01 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    SETI and Forensic science try to answer 'Who? Where? When? and How?"

    They are still gap arguments- according to your "logic".

     
  • At 3:03 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, if thy weren't designed...how did they come about? What mechanism allows for their being?

    More to the point, if the designers weren't designed, why should would you assume that we are?

    And beating the supernatural horse to death:

    If the designers weren't designed and are not natural beings, what--in your very valuable opinion--would they be?

     
  • At 3:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Show me how the genetic differences observed between chimps and humans can be linked to the physiological and anatomical differences observed.

    That should be easy to do, that is unless the theory of evolution is NOT founded on scientific data.


    If the evolutionitwits posting here are any indication the theory of evolution is not founded on scientific data.

    Thank you for once again confirming my point of view.

     
  • At 3:04 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Wrong again. I'm not a religious person and Intelligent Design does not try to explain ANYTHING.

    I fixed that for you.

     
  • At 3:09 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Buy a dictionary. I am OK with with the standard accepted definitions.

    Here's a standard definition from dictionary.com:

    of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural

    So, when you said: Not everything that is beyond, nature has to be supernatural.

    you were lying?

    Or were you lying when you said: I am OK with with the standard accepted definitions.?

     
  • At 3:42 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Wrong again. I'm not a religious person and Intelligent Design does not try to explain EVERYYTHING.

    I fixed that for you.

    You couldn't fix anything if your life depended on it. Intelligent Design explains quite a bit but you wouldn't know because your head is so far up your ass I find it amazing that you can use a computer.

    So, if thy weren't designed...how did they come about? What mechanism allows for their being?

    MY POINT is it doesn't matter HOW the designers came to be. That YOU keep dragging on about this just shows how far you will go to distract a thread.

    More to the point, if the designers weren't designed, why should would you assume that we are?

    So does that mean that Stonehenge wasn't designed? If living organisms didn't require a designer why would a simple stone arrangement need one? Stones are found in nature and they are produced by nature.

    Therefore, by blipey's "logic", Stonehenge wasn't designed.

    Now if he could only convince someone smarter than a rock.

    But anyway, we can only work on what we have. And if we knew who the designers were then we wouldn't have a design inference. Design would be a given.

    Infinite regress works both ways and it appears that your side does indeed regress back to the supernatural.

    A few atheists had me convinced that not everything beyond nature need be supernatural after I pointed out that even their position requires something beyond nature- natural processes only exist in nature and therefore cannot account for its origins.

    Geez blipey- you not only wiped out archaeology, you have also shown that atheism is a logical fallacy.

    You go girl!!! Thanks

     
  • At 3:48 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Here's a standard definition from dictionary.com:

    of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural


    Not everything that is beyond, nature has to be supernatural.

    But if it is beyond nature, ie unobservable, we don't know if it is above or beyond what is natural. Meaning your definition does nothing.

    Design exists in nature and therefore is natural. Intelligence exists in nature and therefore is also natural.

     
  • At 3:49 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Not getting any at home, Joe? You want a little clown ass? What's the family going to say about that?

    So, if those designers weren't designed, where do you think they came from?

    And, could you define supernatural for us. I'm sue anyone reading your discussion of the subject is confused.

     
  • At 3:52 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    um, it's not my definition, Joe. It comes from a dictionary. You know, the standard tome for telling us what words mean. Are you taking issue with all of the dictionary publishers in the world? I'm sure they'll just be beside themselves because Joe Gallien thinks they aren't doing a good job.

    If something is beyond nature it is not of nature, therefor supernatural, Joe. Take it up Oxford.

     
  • At 3:55 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Let's try this definition. Would you agree with the following?

    A being who is not of Earth is extraterrestrial?

    Now, try to think about a being who is not of nature. Would it be extranatural (supernatural)?

     
  • At 4:31 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey,

    Are you trying to prove that your position relies on the supernatural? Because it does regress back to something beyond nature.

    But what you can't do is to say that ID relies on the supernatural because of regression and out of the other side of your ass say that your position doesn't when it regresses to the same point.

    And yes, you are a little clown ass. A dumbass to be a sure but an ass nontheless.

    So, if those designers weren't designed, where do you think they came from?

    What designers? And more to the point, do we have to know anything about the designers BEFORE we can determine design is present and set out to try to understand it? And reality demonstrates that we do not need to know the designers before making a design inference.

    If we ever get to observe the designers then we can try to determine where they came from and how they came to be.

     
  • At 4:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    A being who is not of Earth is extraterrestrial?

    What if said being comes/ came from a terrestrial planet? It wouldn't be an "extraterrestrial" would it?

    Now, try to think about a being who is not of nature. Would it be extranatural (supernatural)?

    What about nonnatural- existing outside of or not in accordance with nature.

    Ya see clowny, if your head wasn't so far up your ass you would be able to think.

    This has to sting...

     
  • At 4:50 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    so you are saying that supernatural (the state of being outside of nature) is not the same as nonnatural (which is the state of being outside of nature)?

    a truly boggling mind you have. Take it up with Oxford. I'm sure they'll publish a special JoeG edition of the OED.

    So, could you define supernatural for us? Please remember that you can't use any definition that would mean outside of or beyond nature. As, apparently, you don't believe that supernatural means those things.

     
  • At 6:01 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    extraterrestrial:

    adjective 1. outside, or originating outside, the limits of the earth.


    Whoopsy!
    Ps cupcake, if you know the point of origin and the speed of the message medium, you can work out when it was sent. Isn't science great!

    s = d/t
    t = d/s
    d = st

     
  • At 6:03 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "What if said being comes/ came from a terrestrial planet? It wouldn't be an "extraterrestrial" would it?"

    erm no. You're using a word you don't understand. It means "from beyond earth"

    "This has to sting..."

    We can get you some cream for that, Joe.

     
  • At 8:15 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    so you are saying that supernatural (the state of being outside of nature) is not the same as nonnatural (which is the state of being outside of nature)?

    Yes, if they were the same the definitions would say that. IOW "nonnatural" would say "See also 'supernatural'" and supernatural would say "see also 'nonnatural'".

    However it is obvious that "supernatural" is a special case of "nonnatural"- that is if you read the complete definitions.

    supernatural:

    • adjective 1 attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. 2 exceptionally or extraordinarily great.


    Nonnatural doesn't include the special powers attributed to the supernatural.

    And if you think they are the same then your position is in the same boat as ID. Meaning if ID is a religious coincept because of regress then so is your position a religious position.

     
  • At 8:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "What if said being comes/ came from a terrestrial planet? It wouldn't be an "extraterrestrial" would it?"

    erm no.

    Thanks for agreeing with me.

    You're using a word you don't understand.

    blipey used the word. I just asked a couple questions.

    extraterrestrial:

    adjective 1. outside, or originating outside, the limits of the earth.


    So a being living on a terestrial planet can be an extraterrestrial- OK if we dismiss the blatant contradiction.

    extra-

    • prefix 1 outside; beyond: extramarital. 2 beyond the scope of: extra-curricular.



    terrestrial
    /trestril/

    • adjective 1 of, on, or relating to the earth or dry land. 2 (of an animal or plant) living on or in the ground. 3 (of television broadcasting) using ground-based equipment rather than a satellite.

    Yup, something is amiss.

    if you know the point of origin and the speed of the message medium, you can work out when it was sent.

    What if you didn't know the speed of the message medium? And what happens when the point of origin isn't known, just the general direction the signal came from?

    None of that matters as by your "logic" SETI is still a gap argument.

     
  • At 8:30 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    extraterrestrial:

    adjective 1. outside, or originating outside, the limits of the earth.


    earth in small letters could just mean "the substance of the land surface; soil."

     
  • At 8:32 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey,

    Are you trying to prove that your position relies on the supernatural? Because it does regress back to something beyond nature.

    But what you can't do is to say that ID relies on the supernatural because of regression and out of the other side of your ass say that your position doesn't when it regresses to the same point.

     
  • At 1:15 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "What if you didn't know the speed of the message medium? And what happens when the point of origin isn't known, just the general direction the signal came from?"

    I don't think they're looking for cosmic paper planes, Joe.

    *sigh*

    Your extraterrestrial "interpretation" cracks me up. So Humans are extraterrestrial, but Earthworms aren't?

    Thanks for the laughs, Joe.

     
  • At 2:12 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Your extraterrestrial "interpretation" cracks me up.

    Morons usually laugh at what they are incapable of understanding.

    So Humans are extraterrestrial, but Earthworms aren't?

    I never said nor implied such a thing. Both humans and earthworms are terrestrial.

    And so would any being from a terrestrial planet.

    "What if you didn't know the speed of the message medium? And what happens when the point of origin isn't known, just the general direction the signal came from?"

    I don't think they're looking for cosmic paper planes, Joe.

    That doesn't even respond to anything I posted.

    BTW Richie- the only way to determine the speed is by STUDYING the signal. And that is exactly what I have been saying all along. To make determinations about the design in question one must study it.

     
  • At 2:18 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey,

    I know this is beyond your capability but try to apply "set theory"-

    The set {nonnatural} includes the subset {supernatural}:

    {nonnatural{supernatural}}

    Everything that is supernatural is also nonnatural. But not everything nonnatural has to be supernatural.

     
  • At 6:36 PM, Blogger rishy said…

    What causes seemingly intelligent folks (like you, joe) to not just believe in, but seemingly require for your own sustenance, a creator? Are you stuck in the 2nd grade mentally?

    What would finding out you are right do for you or anyone? Would it advance thinking, or academia? And what if you found out you (your childish assumptions, that is)were wrong? Would that knowledge help advance thinking or academia?

    Grow up. Life is not a fairytale, nor is its genesis (like that word, don't ya!).

    Why don't you do something productive with all your scientific curiosity and chutzpah. Surely your talents could be used toward a meaningful end (not "of days" of course)?

    Peace and knowledge,
    The person you will call a name in 3....2....1.....!!!

     
  • At 6:48 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    What about fish, Joe? They have to be extraterrestrial. Except for that Japanese one that can walk on land for a few minutes. I guess it would be bi-terrestrial, but God don't like those things.

     
  • At 8:15 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What causes seemingly intelligent folks (like you, joe) to not just believe in, but seemingly require for your own sustenance, a creator?

    The data, evidence and observations point to intelligent design.

    Anthony Flew, once a well respected and often references atheist, now accepts ID because of the scientific data which supports it- go figure.

    Then there is Charles Darwin, who said:

    "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." (bold added)

    BTW the greatest minds that have ever walked this planet also saw that the data, evidence and observations pointed to an intelligent design.

    What would cause anyone to believe that our existence is due to nothing but sheer dumb luck?

    What would finding out you are right do for you or anyone?

    It would change the way we look at things. It would also change the way we investigate.

    You do realize that an investigation changes once it is determined that which is being investigated arose by intentional design- don't you?

    Would it advance thinking, or academia?

    It would advance reality. And again it would move us down the proper investigative path.

    Grow up. Life is not a fairytale, nor is its genesis (like that word, don't ya!).

    Umm, I'm not a christian and I don't care about the Bible. I am grown up, gtrown up enough to realize that it is YOUR position of sheer dumb luck which is the fairy-tale. And grown up enough to know that sheer dumb luck is a scientifically vacuous position.

    and ONCE AGAIN- All you have to do to make ID and Spevcial Creation go away is to actually support YOUR dumbass position. However it has become glaringly obvious that you cannot and instead choose to throw rocks from the cheap seats.

    Yes rishy, you are an intellectual coward. Just like all the rest of the anti-ID imbeciles.

     
  • At 8:18 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What about fish, Joe?

    No thanks. I'll just order a pizza.

     
  • At 9:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    rishy, who said it wanted to stop the nastiness, posts the following (how I could have responded):

    What causes seemingly intelligent folks (like you, joe) to not just believe in, but seemingly require for your own sustenance, a creator? Are you stuck in the 2nd grade mentally?

    (why are you stuck with your head up your ass?)

    And what if you found out you (your childish assumptions, that is)were wrong?

    (Unlike you, I wouldn't run around with my head up my ass.)


    Grow up. Life is not a fairytale, nor is its genesis (like that word, don't ya!).

    (No it isn't. The question is if life isn't a fairy-tale then why do YOU believe in magical mystery mutations?)

    knowledge over ignorance,

    The person who knows more than rishy could ever hope to

     
  • At 9:57 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    If a pizza is contained in box that the delivery boy (the who gives you a wink every time he comes to the door, Joe) tosses through the air, is the pizza extraterrestrial? Why or why not?

     
  • At 11:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Sorry, no pizzas delivered to my house. Out of the delivery zones.

    I make my own, but when I am out I would order a pizza rather than fish.

    You did ask about fish- right?

     
  • At 11:46 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    So I take it you have absolutely no defense of your lame definition of extraterrestrial?

    Given that a microwave oven is mounted as a cantilevered beam, is the microwave extraterrestrial?

     
  • At 12:27 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So I take it you have absolutely no defense of your lame definition of extraterrestrial?

    As I said before- you can take it up your ass for all that I care.

    I didn't provide a definition of "extraterrestrial".

    I provided a definition of the prefix "extra-" as well as a definition of the word "terrestrial" and both from standard and accepted dictionarY- Oxford.

    Then, by taking those together, as would be the case in the word "extraterrestrial", I demonstrated a contradiction.

    But anyways- This was blipey's big chance to present one idea, something, anything to support his PoV, and as usual he couldn't come up with anything except to hijack the thread and take it down as many irrelevant tangents as I would allow.

    I take it the following went right over your head:

    I know this is beyond your capability but try to apply "set theory"-

    The set {nonnatural} includes the subset {supernatural}:

    {nonnatural{supernatural}}

    Everything that is supernatural is also nonnatural. But not everything nonnatural has to be supernatural.

     
  • At 12:52 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Uh. I presented my point of view: supernatural means beyond nature as anything that is not of nature is supernatural. then, I...uh, well, cited a dictionary.

    You cited a dictionary as well. It was a repeat of my definition. In fact, your definition mentioned that supernatural meant beyond nature. Then you immediately said that this inferred that supernatural did not mean beyond nature.

    Truly dizzying.

     
  • At 2:28 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thanks, again, for proving you are a moron. A dishonest moron at that.

    The definition I provided:

    supernatural-
    • adjective 1 attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. 2 exceptionally or extraordinarily great.

    And before that I provided a definition of nonnatural: What about nonnatural- existing outside of or not in accordance with nature.

    Then I explained:

    Nonnatural doesn't include the special powers attributed to the supernatural.

    And if you think they are the same then your position is in the same boat as ID. Meaning if ID is a religious coincept because of regress then so is your position a religious position.


    I then further explained:

    I know this is beyond your capability but try to apply "set theory"-

    The set {nonnatural} includes the subset {supernatural}:

    {nonnatural{supernatural}}

    Everything that is supernatural is also nonnatural. But not everything nonnatural has to be supernatural.


    And just as predicted you ignored all that and lied about what transpired.

    That is why it is impossible to have a discussion with you.

     
  • At 4:49 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW clowny,

    Take a look at what dictionary.com really has to say about the word supernatural:

    1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

    2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.

    3. of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.

    4. of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.

    You only provided part of the first definition. IOW you were being dishonest.

     
  • At 5:20 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    uh, Joe. that is what supernatural means. beyond nature, beyond natural law, abnormal (in relation to the previous situation). Or are you claiming that supernatural merely means abnormal. In that case a snow storm in April is an example of a supernatural occurrence.

    So, I still claim that supernatural means beyond nature. You still claim that it does not.

    1. you claim that supernatural is not the same as nonnatural

    2. the definition of supernatural is (as shown by dictionary.com) "beyond nature"

    3. the definition of nonnatural is (as shown by your link) "existing outside of or not in accordance with nature"

    4. these two definitions are the same.

     
  • At 8:05 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    uh, Joe. that is what supernatural means. beyond nature, beyond natural law, abnormal (in relation to the previous situation). Or are you claiming that supernatural merely means abnormal. In that case a snow storm in April is an example of a supernatural occurrence.

    Read the defintion AGAIN:

    1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

    2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.

    1. you claim that supernatural is not the same as nonnatural

    And I provided a valid explanation that you keep ignoring.

    Why is that?

    2. the definition of supernatural is (as shown by dictionary.com) "beyond nature"

    It means more than that as evidenced by said definition. Whereas "nonnatural" stops there- at beyond nature.

    3. the definition of nonnatural is (as shown by your link) "existing outside of or not in accordance with nature"

    Right and IT STOPS THERE. Whereas "supernatural" has more qualities attributed to it. Again as evidenced by the definitions provided.

    4. these two definitions are the same.

    Only partly the same. And THAT is my point.

    What part about the following don't you understand?

    Nonnatural doesn't include the special powers attributed to the supernatural.

    And if you think they are the same then your position is in the same boat as ID. Meaning if ID is a religious coincept because of regress then so is your position a religious position.

    I then further explained:

    I know this is beyond your capability but try to apply "set theory"-

    The set {nonnatural} includes the subset {supernatural}:

    {nonnatural{supernatural}}

    Everything that is supernatural is also nonnatural. But not everything nonnatural has to be supernatural.


    Or are you just to stupid to understand it?

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

    The set {nonnatural} includes the subset {supernatural}:

    {nonnatural{supernatural}}


    Under that condition it would be expected that an overlap would occur in the definitions of both words.

    And THAT is exactly what blipey has pointed out. Thanks.

    We would also expect to see differences in both definitions.

    And THAT is exactly what I have pointed out and blipey has ignored- which is to be expected from a willfully ignorant pawn.

    In closing:

    Everything that is supernatural is also nonnatural. But not everything nonnatural has to be supernatural.

     
  • At 9:16 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Supernatural does not mean having superpowers Joe. Does a ghost have superpowers? Why or why not?

    You must take the definition for what it says, Joe. Not what you would like it to say.

    For instance, if we break the definition down the way you would like to, we must say that supernatural means merely abnormal. In which case, we say things that are merely statistically improbable are actually supernatural. Whereas, supernatural really is closer to meaning statistically impossible.

     
  • At 9:17 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Everything that is supernatural is also nonnatural. But not everything nonnatural has to be supernatural.

    Can you please give a pair of examples so that I can see what you're talking about?

     
  • At 9:25 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So, I still claim that supernatural means beyond nature. You still claim that it does not.

    That's a lie. But thank you for proving that you are dishonest and freak of nature.


    My ORIGINAL claim:

    Not everything that is beyond nature has to be supernatural.

    And that is supported by the definition of "nonnatural".

     
  • At 9:44 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Supernatural does not mean having superpowers Joe.

    I didn't make that claim asswipe.

    Does a ghost have superpowers?

    No one knows.

    You must take the definition for what it says, Joe.

    I am. You are the one twisting the definitions to suit your moronic needs.

    For instance, if we break the definition down the way you would like to, we must say that supernatural means merely abnormal.

    Again that is false and PROVES you cannot follow along and instead invent shit.

    I said you have to consider ALL of the definitions included:

    However it is obvious that "supernatural" is a special case of "nonnatural"- that is if you read the complete definitions.

    clowny, if you are going to lie, why even bother?

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

    Everything that is supernatural is also nonnatural. But not everything nonnatural has to be supernatural.

    Can you please give a pair of examples so that I can see what you're talking about?

    "God" is supernatural, in that "God" more closely matches all of the definitions of supernatural and expands beyond the definition of nonnatural.

    Both the materialistic cause of the universe and the designer(s) of the universe are nonnatural. That is only because that is all science can say about either.

     
  • At 12:48 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So you don't have any specific examples? Great. For example, is a ghost supernatural or nonnatural? Why?

    What about an angel?

    How about the process of having an idea or thought?

    Try to give contrasting examples, Joe. that is what I asked for and it will help others understand what you mean when you are talking about it.

    For the sake of clarity, you should give clear examples of what is supernatural and what is nonnatural. Specificity is key to understanding.

     
  • At 2:50 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So you don't have any specific examples?

    Yes I do- you are an example of a dishonest moron.

    For the sake of clarity, you should give clear examples of what is supernatural and what is nonnatural.

    "God" is supernatural, in that "God" more closely matches all of the definitions of supernatural and expands beyond the definition of nonnatural.

    Both the materialistic cause of the universe and the designer(s) of the universe are nonnatural. That is only because that is all science can say about either.


    And that is as clear as it is going to get. Asking for anything better would just expose your stupidity- how can I provide specific examples of something that has never been studied?

    Did you have a point?

    Ya see if this was in Court you would be forced to show how your position doesn't regress to the same point that ID regresses to.

    And if you waffle like you did earlier you would be chewed up and spit out for thinking that an intellectual cowardly position of waffling can have the authority to pass judgement on those who do not waffle.

    It is this scenario that will be occur during the next case.

    The anti-IDists will either admit that they are waffling intellectual cowards trying to pass judgement on those who made a choice OR they will admit that their position regresses back to the same point as does ID.

    No double-standards will be allowed. And all double-standards will be exposed.

    How about the process of having an idea or thought?

    For you, that would be unnatural.

     
  • At 4:33 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Specificity is key to understanding.

    Then the theory of evolution and universal common descent are in trouble as they lack specifics.

    So by blipey's logic no one understands the theory of evolution nor universal common descent.

    Thanks blipey. This too will be exposed at any trial pertaining to ID.

     
  • At 4:39 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    What if God designed the universe? Then the cause of the universe would be supernatural. Could you give an unambiguous example of something that is nonnatural and fails to be supernatural. What features make the distinction.

    For example, if the creator of the universe is nonnatural and not supernatural, what is his make-up? How do we know that? If we can't know that, is it because we can't investigate it? If we can't investigate it, how do we know that there is difference between the two states?

    You'll need to provide specific examples. Start with the ones I gave you or move on to others if you think that would be more clear:

    a ghost. SN or NN?
    an idea. SN of NN?
    an angel. SN of NN?

    thanks so much

     
  • At 5:16 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    UCD is a pretty 2nd grade idea to grasp Joe. Specific questions can be asked about it.

    Which specific questions does ID ask again?

    How did God... nope, not that one
    Where did... nope
    When... nope
    Who... nope
    What was... nope

     
  • At 7:15 PM, Blogger rishy said…

    "God" is supernatural, in that "God" more closely matches all of the definitions of supernatural and expands beyond the definition of nonnatural.

    Both the materialistic cause of the universe and the designer(s) of the universe are nonnatural. That is only because that is all science can say about either.


    You see, joe, the existence of "god" is in question. Is there a god, or not? Nobody knows. To use the construct of "god" as a real, decided, agreed upon, empirically measured (which it certainly is/can not) entity really puts your arguments on unsure (pie in the sky) footing.

    Your parsing of definitions, and the name calling are just two reasons you have 3 commenters, and no more. Another reason could be that you are simply grasping at straws, and most of the world knows it. Maybe you will get on board with reality soon! Until then, happy dreaming!

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

    You see, joe, the existence of "god" is in question.

    To who? "God" isn't a question pertaining to ID. ID does not require a belief in "God".

    Do you have a point?

    Why don't you just concentrate on supporting your sheer dumb luck PoV? That is the only way that ID will go away.

    And it is obvious that you cannot suport you PoV and that is why you have to attack ID with anything and everything you can no matter how irrelevant it is.

    Daya rishy- try pesenting some scientific data that demonstrates that sheer dumb luck plus time are all that is required to bring about this universe and living organisms.

     
  • At 8:03 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    UCD is a pretty 2nd grade idea to grasp Joe. Specific questions can be asked about it.

    Then how come when I ask specific questions all I get is nonsensical bullshit from the likes of you?

    I take that means you are dumber than a 2nd grader. Thanks for the admission.

    You do realize that no one on this planet even knows whether or not the transformations required (for UCD) are even possible. And that means there is no way to objectively test the concept.

    IOW once again you prove that you are a blind and mindless drone.

    Which specific questions does ID ask again?

    Bot irreducible complexity and complex specied information are specified concepts.

     
  • At 8:16 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What if God designed the universe?

    Geez clowny, I answered that already:

    If the Designer is "God", so what?- not that I expect you to undert=stand it...

    Here is the accompanying blog:

    Does the Designer have to be "God"?


    Could you give an unambiguous example of something that is nonnatural and fails to be supernatural. What features make the distinction.

    I already have. That you refuse to accept what I posted or just cannot understand it, means nothing to me.

    I am more than willing to take my chances in Court.

    For example, if the creator of the universe is nonnatural and not supernatural, what is his make-up?

    I answered that too.

    Do you read what I post? Obviously not.

    You'll need to provide specific examples.

    Can you provide the specific mutations that occured to cause the divergence of chimps and humans?

    Can you provide the specific genetic sequences that can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed bchimps and humans?

    Here is an easy one- Can you tell me the specific methodology used to determine that the universe and life arose via non-telic processes?

    BTW clowny- ID is about the DESIGN, not the designer.

     
  • At 8:20 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    rishy,

    Most of the world thinks that your position is nonsense. In the USA alone your position is very much in the minority. And it doesn't get much better any place else.

    And if you think that sheer dumb luck plus time is reality then you have more problems than I care to address.

     
  • At 8:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    UCD is a pretty 2nd grade idea to grasp Joe. Specific questions can be asked about it.

    Specific questions can be asked, sure. But no answeres will follow.

     
  • At 10:10 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    As I have been saying for many years and imbeciles like blipey, Richie & rishy, refuse to understand:

    Reality dictates that the ONLY way to make ANY determination(s) about the designer(s) or the specific process(es) used, in the absence of direct observation or designers) input(s), is by studying the design(s) in question.

    That is how it is done in archaeology. That is how it is done with forensic science.

    "Intelligent design begins with a seemingly innocuous question: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?"- Wm Dembski

    Reality also demonstrates that it matters a great deal to any investigation whether or not that which is being investigated occured via agency or nature, operating freely.

     
  • At 4:06 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What if God designed the universe? Then the cause of the universe would be supernatural.

    How do you figure that? That the causal agent is supernatural means the cause is also supernatural? Non-sequitur.

    For all anyone knows "God" designed the universe using natural processes- right after he designed those.

    And we already understand that the cause of the universe is beyond the universe.

    However the design exists in the universe and as such is open to scientific investigation.

     
  • At 10:51 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Which specific questions does ID ask again?

    Bot irreducible complexity and complex specied information are specified concepts.


    And yet you offer no questions...hmmm.

     
  • At 10:54 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    I already answered all you questions, Joe. Just go back and read what I wrote. Duh.

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

    Which specific questions does ID ask again?

    Both irreducible complexity and complex specied information are specified concepts.

    And yet you offer no questions...hmmm.

    The questions would be:

    1- "Intelligent design begins with a seemingly innocuous question: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?"- Wm Dembski

    2- Does irreducible complexity exist?

    3- what structures/ objects/ events exhbit IC?

    4- Does CSI exist?

    5- What structures/ objects/ events exhibit CSI?

     
  • At 8:03 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I already answered all you questions, Joe.

    You have never answered any of my questions pertaining to the theory of evolution or UCD. Never.

    Just go back and read what I wrote.

    I have read what you have written. There isn't anything of substance in any of your posts. There never has been.

    The followuing are three questions you never answered:

    Can you provide the specific mutations that occured to cause the divergence of chimps and humans?

    Can you provide the specific genetic sequences that can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed bchimps and humans?

    Here is an easy one- Can you tell me the specific methodology used to determine that the universe and life arose via non-telic processes?

     
  • At 8:06 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    rishy:
    Your parsing of definitions, and the name calling are just two reasons you have 3 commenters, and no more.

    3 commenters and not one contribution out each any of you. Also if you don't like my name calling stop calling me names and stop with the insulting posts.

     
  • At 8:31 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Questions that blipey never answered- in this alone:

    In your anti-ID scenario did the laws that govern our universe just magically poof into existence?

    The other option is our existence is due to sheer dumb luck. Care to explain why YOU believe THAT?

    Why do you wear your stupidity and ignorance as a badge of honor?

    Are you trying to prove that your position relies on the supernatural?

    And more to the point, do we have to know anything about the designers BEFORE we can determine design is present and set out to try to understand it?

    What part about the following don't you understand?

    Nonnatural doesn't include the special powers attributed to the supernatural.

    And if you think they are the same then your position is in the same boat as ID. Meaning if ID is a religious coincept because of regress then so is your position a religious position.

    I then further explained:

    I know this is beyond your capability but try to apply "set theory"-

    The set {nonnatural} includes the subset {supernatural}:

    {nonnatural{supernatural}}

    Everything that is supernatural is also nonnatural. But not everything nonnatural has to be supernatural.

    Or are you just to stupid to understand it?


    Can you provide the specific mutations that occured to cause the divergence of chimps and humans?

    Can you provide the specific genetic sequences that can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed bchimps and humans?

    Here is an easy one- Can you tell me the specific methodology used to determine that the universe and life arose via non-telic processes?



    Meaning when blipey wrote: "I already answered all you questions, Joe. Just go back and read what I wrote", he is lying again.

     
  • At 12:22 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    I already answered all you questions, Joe.

    You have never answered any of my questions pertaining to the theory of evolution or UCD. Never.

    Just go back and read what I wrote.

    I have read what you have written. There isn't anything of substance in any of your posts. There never has been.

    Man, I could read that all day. That's super funny.

     
  • At 12:30 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    As to your list of questions, that wasn't so hard was it? All I had to do was ask 57 times. Now let's evaluate them.

    1. Can objects show the hallmarks of design?

    Now this is a fine question. I like it; as a question it has merit. Has any progress been made on it? Hmmm. No. The EF--the one attempt to answer this question--has never been used to evaluate anything. Even you refuse to use it.

    2. Does IC exist?

    That hasn't been going well either. In fact, the entire theory has been shown to be not only unusable but silly. It is based solely on the idea of "I can't imagine that..."

    3. What structures are IC?

    The aren't any. Zero objects have been shown to be IC. Because IC has never been clearly defined, there is no standard to hold any particular object up to.

    4. Does CSI exist?

    As a TV franchise, yes. On other fronts? No clear definition has ever been offered. There are no numbers that would differentiate CSI from regular I.

    5. What structures exhibit CSI?

    Assuming that these objects are different from the zero objects that display IC, it would be a different set of zero objects. Without any sort of numbers AT ALL, it is hard to show that a thing exhibits any property at all.

     
  • At 8:08 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I already answered all you questions, Joe.

    No you haven't.

    You have never answered any of my questions pertaining to the theory of evolution or UCD. Never.

    You never asked me any questions pertaining to the theory of evolution or UCD.

    Just go back and read what I wrote.

    I have. There isn't anything there.

    I have read what you have written.

    All evidence to the contrary of course.

    There isn't anything of substance in any of your posts. There never has been.

    Seeing that it has been proven tat you are a dishonest moron, how would you know?

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

    blipey thinks that ignorance is a refutation:

    1. Can objects show the hallmarks of design?

    Now this is a fine question. I like it; as a question it has merit. Has any progress been made on it? Hmmm. No. The EF--the one attempt to answer this question--has never been used to evaluate anything. Even you refuse to use it.

    Your ignorance is not a refutation. The EF has been used- it is used by many investigators- one such team, investigating ghosts, uses the EF as they try to debunk that ghosts are the cause of the phenomenon observed.

    Also the EF has been used on the bacterial flagellum.

    And blipey- I have used the EF to evaluate things.

    However clowny I have noticed that you refuse to post the methodology used to determine the universe and life arose via purely non-telic processes.

    2. Does IC exist?

    That hasn't been going well either.

    In reality it has been going really well. The more we discover the deeper IC runs.

    In fact, the entire theory has been shown to be not only unusable but silly.

    By who? And why are scientists running around trying to debunk the idea of IC? And why have they failed?

    It is based solely on the idea of "I can't imagine that..."

    Science isn't done via imagination peter pan.

    Data- you require data. And seeing the best you can do is to show one new protein-to-protein binding site it is obvious that IC is still going strong.



    3. What structures are IC?

    blipey:The aren't any.

    Wrong! There are many. And science has demonstrated that fact.

    Your ignorance is not a refutation.

    Zero objects have been shown to be IC. Because IC has never been clearly defined, there is no standard to hold any particular object up to.

    Again your ignorance is not a refutation. IC is well defined- and I provided the definition in my post "Specificity is key to understanding".

    IOW you are ignorant and dishonest.

    4. Does CSI exist?

    As a TV franchise, yes.

    There's a TV franchise called Complex Specified Information? I never heard of it.

    On other fronts? No clear definition has ever been offered.

    Again your ignorance should not be mistaken for a refutation. I provided a clear definition in the post "Specificity is key to understanding". You must be too stupid to understand it.

    There are no numbers that would differentiate CSI from regular I.

    Yes there is. As I posted 500 bits of specified information makes it complex specified information.

    5. What structures exhibit CSI?

    Assuming that these objects are different from the zero objects that display IC, it would be a different set of zero objects. Without any sort of numbers AT ALL, it is hard to show that a thing exhibits any property at all.

    blipey it is true that if you and your ilk run around with your heads up your ass you will never know anything about ID.

    However the rest of the world isn't as willfully ignorant as you are. And that is a good thing.

     
  • At 8:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Can you provide the specific mutations that occured to cause the divergence of chimps and humans?

    Can you provide the specific genetic sequences that can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed bchimps and humans?

    Here is an easy one- Can you tell me the specific methodology used to determine that the universe and life arose via non-telic processes?


    blipey your next post has to deal with those questions. If you refuse to deal with them then find some other blog to pollute.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home