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

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

blipey the clown: Liar, Loser and Ignoramus

In an attempt to explain Intelligent Design and the design detection process, blipey the clown further exposed its dishonesty and ignorance.

"You claim to be able to determine design by just examining the string itself."--blipey the clueless clown


That is a lie clowny. No IDist has ever made that claim.

"By looking at the string, can ID tell me if it was designed or not?"--blipey


No blipey. As with ALL scientific investigations, ID also requires a thorough investigation.

What are we investigating? Where was the object found? What is the surrounding area?

IOW no investigation is done in a vacuum.

However I wouldn't expect a clown to understand how science is conducted- that is why you are a clown and not a professional investigator.

I listed 10 books pertaining to ID. Reading those books should cure your ignorance. Although I am sure you will not read them because it appears that you are proud of being ignorant.

posted by Joe G @ 8:16 AM  

81 Comments:

  • At 9:15 AM, Blogger Ghostrider said…

    JG: However I wouldn't expect a clown to understand how science is conducted- that is why you are a clown and not a professional investigator.

    JG: I fix things- all kinds of things- mechanical, electrical, electronic and personal

    What sort of formal science training or professional investigator background do you have Joe?

     

  • At 9:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What sort of formal science training or professional investigator background do you have Joe?

    Just off the top:

    1- Many years of hunting, tracking & wandering through the woods- IOW many years of experience knowing what mother nature can do and what intelligent agencies can do.

    2- Many years working with designed objects- again knowing what intelligent agencies can do and how to use what mother nature provides for a specific purpose.

    3- Many years of determining the root cause of equipment malfunctions- natural, ie normal wera-n-tear, or designed- customer misuse or sabotage.

    4- Engineering is taking science and putting it to use.

    5- More than enough to understand Ion Mobility Spectrometry and how to break down the readings to gain knowledge of the product being inspected. Then take that knowledge and pass it on to others so that they may also conduct proper investigations.

    That was enough to get a personal, private guided tour of the Statue of Liberty in July 2004- it didn't re-open to the public until August.

    IOW most of my life has been conducting investigations on one level or another. Research & Design- that is all about investigating and all about scientific methodology.

     

  • At 9:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    But anyways, thorton, even if I didn't have any experience investigating, it would still be obvious that blipey is a clueless twit, and a liar, just but what it posted.

     

  • At 10:23 AM, Blogger Ghostrider said…

    So in other words, you have no formal training in biology, or genetics, or advanced mathematics, or any sciences that you can tell us about. Yet you think your life experience wandering through the woods with nature makes qualified to dismiss the work of real science professionals and researchers.

    Interesting.

    You seem to be way more focused in insulting Blipey than providing any positive evidence for ID beyond your own personal incredulity. You couldn't even get your CSI calculations right. Why don't you just rename your blog "Joe Hates Blipey" to save time?

     

  • At 11:44 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So in other words, you have no formal training in biology, or genetics, or advanced mathematics, or any sciences that you can tell us about.

    None that I care to tell you about. However I do have plenty of formal training in science, engineering and investigating.

    Yet you think your life experience wandering through the woods with nature makes qualified to dismiss the work of real science professionals and researchers.

    Any examples of me dismissing anyone's work would be appreciated.

    Also only by ignoring my response to you could you come upo with the nonsensical "Yet you think your life experience wandering through the woods with nature makes qualified..". IOW it is obvious you are once again choosing to be willfully ignorant.

    You seem to be way more focused in insulting Blipey than providing any positive evidence for ID beyond your own personal incredulity.

    blipey is deserving of everything and anything thrown at it. And I have provided plenty of evidence for ID.

    YOU on the other hand have provided absolutely NOTHING to substantiate your position. YOU canNOT even provide a testable hypothesis for non-telic processes.

    You couldn't even get your CSI calculations right.

    I did get my calculations right. Your ignorance is not,and never will be, a refutation.

    No one is forcing clowny to post here and expose its stupidity and willfull ignorance.

    And no one is forcing you to post here and further expose your ignorance and dishonesty.

    Yet here you both are....

     

  • At 11:58 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Is blipey as qualified (or more?) than JoeG to talk science?

    1. Joe says he's wandered around in the woods.

    1A. Blipey is an Eagle Scout with palm awards after.

    2. Joe says he's worked with designed objects

    2A. Blipey has designed objects, including an unmanned glider, while an engineering student at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.

    3. Joe says he determines the root causes of equipment malfunctions.

    3A. Blipey has spent years examining the human being (something that Joe says is designed) for flaws in order to create chaacters for stage and screen.

    4. Joe says something trivial and doesn't even connect himself with it.

    4A. Blipey skips it...oh wait, no he didn't!

    5. Joe says he can use a spectrometer.

    5A. Blipey wonders how this qualifies him as anything but a technician, but mentions that he can do auto repair (and also recognizes that this doe not qualify him to teach cosmology).

    Looking at the tally, Blipey appears to be ahead. The edge goes to Blipey in the following categories: 1 & 2. Joe wins 3, based solely on his claim to know designed things (Blipey doesn't think humans are designed). The other two are pushes.

    Too bad, Joe.

     

  • At 12:03 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Aw, now cjyman will never get to answer my reply. What's the matter? Think he might say something that reveals you to be a moron?

     

  • At 7:50 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    1- Many years of hunting, tracking & wandering through the woods- IOW many years of experience knowing what mother nature can do and what intelligent agencies can do.

    Hunting and tracking requires expertise- IOW it requires knowing what nature, operating freely, can produce as well as what intelligent agencies can produce. And another word for people who wander through the woods is a woodsman, or naturalist.

    4- Engineering is taking science and putting it to use.

    Engineering is my profession.

    5- More than enough to understand Ion Mobility Spectrometry and how to break down the readings to gain knowledge of the product being inspected. Then take that knowledge and pass it on to others so that they may also conduct proper investigations.

    This takes knowledge of physics ands chemistry.

    Couple that with my 3 years of formal training in biology and I am light years ahead of a clown, especially one that sez the shit that comes from blipey's mouth.

    It is obvious that clowny never investigated anything in its life.

    On the other hand I have been around the world either leading or helping out with investigations.

    So how about it clowny- do you care to explain how someone who thinks it is qualified to investigate can lie and make shit up the way you do?

    Explain the following or shut up:

    blipey:
    "You claim to be able to determine design by just examining the string itself."

    That is a lie clowny. No IDist has ever made that claim.

    With your next post either you have to substantiate what you posted or admit you lied.

    and when you ask leading questions, you really expose your ignorance when it comes to science and ID:

    "By looking at the string, can ID tell me if it was designed or not?"

    No blipey. As with ALL scientific investigations, ID also requires a thorough investigation.

    IOW clowny all your alleged qualifications don't mean squat if you choose to be an imbecilic moron.

    Now run along, go put on your make-up and juggle something. That is about all that you are qualified to do.

     

  • At 7:58 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Aw, now cjyman will never get to answer my reply.

    Umm I provided a link to CJYman's blog. Are you too ignorant to follow that link and post on his blog?

    Thank you for continuing to make my case.

    What's the matter?

    I have had enough with your drooling and willfull ignorance.

    Think he might say something that reveals you to be a moron?

    Both of us have said enough to prove that you are a moron. What else needs to be said?

     

  • At 8:48 AM, Blogger Ghostrider said…

    Couple that with my 3 years of formal training in biology and I am light years ahead of a clown, especially one that sez the shit that comes from blipey's mouth.

    What three years of formal training in biology would that be Joe? From where? What biology courses did you take? Three years of formal training would imply you have at least an MS in Biology.

    Haven't you claimed before to have a BSET degree and work as a technician?

    Oh, and can you give an example of "nature operating freely"? When you avoided the animal claw mark example I gave a while back you claimed that wasn't part of nature.

     

  • At 9:31 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What three years of formal training in biology would that be Joe?

    The three+ years I spent preparing to be either a zoologist or marine biologist.

    Three years of formal training would imply you have at least an MS in Biology.

    No it doesn't. If you knew anything you would know that most scientists have their students do the work and they come around to make sure all is going well.

    Haven't you claimed before to have a BSET degree and work as a technician?

    I have worked as a technician. I have also worked as a design engineer.

    I have also worked as a carpenter, plumber, electrician, inventor and mostly as an investigator.

    Oh, and can you give an example of "nature operating freely"?

    A snow drift.

    When you avoided the animal claw mark example I gave a while back you claimed that wasn't part of nature.

    So you do choose to be willfully ignorant. No surprise there.

    In reality I answered your ignorance about animal claw marks. I even produced the literature that supports my claim.

    That is when you basically dropped it and started on some other distractive nonsense.

    Perhaps you should read the books I recommended.

    OR you could start substantiating the claims of your position.

    Otherwise go and play in traffic.

     

  • At 9:33 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    But anyways, thorton, even if I didn't have any experience investigating, it would still be obvious that blipey is a clueless twit, and a liar, just but what it posted.

     

  • At 9:54 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To prove throton is also a liar, loser and ignoramus-

    From the thread Calculating CSI for Babies:

    thorton:
    So an animal sharpening its claws is not part of "nature operating freely."

    It would be an example of an animal doing something.

    Nature, operating freely means no agency involvement. Animals = agency.

    Read "Nature, Design and Science" by Del Ratszch.

    Also an artifact can be something like a hook that a crow made to get at soemthing:

    artifact:

    "It may be suggested that the maker of an artifact need not be a human being. For example, in a recent experiment a New Caledonian crow called Betty bent a piece of straight wire into a hook and used it to lift a bucket containing food from a vertical pipe (Weir at al., 2002). Betty's hook may be regarded as a simple artifact made for the purpose of gaining access to the food bucket."

    Ignorance is not a good position to argue from. Yet you guys do it as if you are proud of your ignorance.

     

  • At 11:14 AM, Blogger Ghostrider said…

    JG: The three+ years I spent preparing to be either a zoologist or marine biologist.

    So what courses did you take? More importantly, what if any courses did you pass? You obviously failed at that path.

    I have worked as a technician. I have also worked as a design engineer.

    I have also worked as a carpenter, plumber, electrician, inventor and mostly as an investigator.

    So you've failed at a number of things. Doesn't surprise me. Maybe this latest career as internet blog professional whiner is your true calling.

    Why do you think not one single person has tried to apply the EF to a biological entity since Dembski's one and only embarrassing attempt 7 years ago?

     

  • At 11:37 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    thorton,

    I have excelled at a number of things- including everything I have mentioned.

    I stopped my pursuit of being a zoologist/ marine biologist because of dogmatic evolutionism.

    I switched to a profession in which reality and results actually matter.

    On the other hand I have noticed that yopu have failed miserably in defending your position.

    You can't even provide a testable hypothesis for your position.

    IOW you are a failure.

    And all you have to do to dis my credentials is to actually stand up for your position.

    Also I have two current blogs dealing directly with biology. And you have been noticeably absent from both.

    So this is my final warning- either start substantiating the claims of your position or go play in traffic. Your posts will not make it through moderation if you continue to refuse to follow the rules of my blog.

     

  • At 2:43 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Thorton: Joe says , and forgive my paraphrasing, that he can "understand anything that man does"

     

  • At 8:14 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe,

    Since you claim that not one of the oh...197,000 or so biology papers ever published have even an iota of substantiating data, WHAT THE FUCK WOULD YOU LIKE US TO SHOW YOU?

    Really, any paper could be cited, with the relevant data highlighted, and you would merely claim that it isn't what you're looking for.

    So stop your stupid-ass claim of wanting to see the data. Go to a library at that wonderful biology school you went to and READ A FUCKING JOURNAL.

    Otherwise, stop asking for something you don't want to see.

     

  • At 7:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Since you claim that not one of the oh...197,000 or so biology papers ever published have even an iota of substantiating data,

    Then all you have to do to refute that claim is to find ONE that does have substantiating data.

    IOW find ONE peer-reviewed article which can account for the physiological and anatomical DIFFERENCES observed via the genetic diffreneces AND that those genetic differences are due to genetic accidents.

    Really, any paper could be cited, with the relevant data highlighted, and you would merely claim that it isn't what you're looking for.

    Present something and we will see.

    IOW present something, anything that would substantiate that claim that an accumulation of genetic accidents accounts for all the physiological and anatomical differences observed.

    I have read biology textboooks. I have read genetic textbooks.

    All the data in those books supports the design inference.

    There isn't ANY scientific data which demonstrates that culled gentic accidents can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed.

    IOW it is obvious that you a fucking liar.

    It is also obvious that you haven't a clue how to conduct an investigation.

    Otherwise, stop asking for something you don't want to see.

    I am asking because I WANT TO SEE IT!!!!

    However it is obvious that you, nor any other evolutionitwit can present anything to support your position.

    But anyways, even if I didn't have any experience investigating, it would still be obvious that blipey is a clueless twit, and a liar, just but what it posted.

    And clowny I have also noticed your absence from all threads dealing with biology.

    Why is that?

    But before you answer that and before posting anything else- try to focus on this thread's OP. For example:

    "You claim to be able to determine design by just examining the string itself."--blipey the clueless clown

    That is a lie clowny. No IDist has ever made that claim.

    IOW clowny your approach to this debate is to lie, no matter what.

     

  • At 7:42 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    One more thing-

    Seeing that not one of you evolutionitwits can even provide a testable hypothesis for your position, it is quite obvious that not one of you understands the science that allgedly supports it.

     

  • At 8:07 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And clowny,

    IF such data exists, that is the data that supports the theory of evolution, why wasn't it presented during the Dover trial?

    And why do we see scientists and philosophers doubting the scientific validity of the theory?

    And why are scientists and philosophers leaving the evolutionitwit side and joining the ranks of ID, and there isn't any IDists leaving to become evolutionitwits?

     

  • At 9:54 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Have you noticed, Joe Dipshit, that I have never claimed to be a biologist?

    Have you ever seen me really argu the nuts and bolts of biology?

    Do you think I am qualified to do so? I've mentioned this to you in the past--that it is ridiculous that you want to argue with ME over these things. If you were really interested in arguing the science, you would discuss things with scientists.

    I notice your lack of commenting in any forum that actually includes scientists.

    That being said, it doesn't take a degree in biology to refute a conspiracy theorist like yourself.

     

  • At 10:24 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Joe, WRT your comment:

    " Richie Retardo chimes in with:
    Thorton: Joe says , and forgive my paraphrasing, that he can "understand anything that man does"

    I didn't say that. However, each time I have taken an IQ test EVERY IQ test evaluator has said that to me- that I can understand anything that mankind does. "

    Joe, here's your comment, archived for all to see:

    http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=5101;st=300#entry88231

    "Joe G said...
    BTW I can repair refrigerators. Did you have a point?

    I can repair anything that is man-made. Anything. And again- did you have a point?

    The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand."

    I said I was paraphrasing. Could you highlight the material difference between

    "understand anything that man does"

    and "...anything that any man does I can understand." or are you a liar, Joe?

     

  • At 1:09 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    clowny,

    I never said that you were a biologist and it is very obvious that you understand very little about it.

    I have commented in several forums in which scientists have participated. They all argue just like you do- all fluff and no stuff.

    BTW I am not a conspiracy theorist. Only in your twisted and demented mind could I be considered one.

    However I am very well aware of the scientific data. I am am more than aware that no one on this planet can demonstrate that said data can be accounted for via non-telic processes.

    The ONLY way non-telic processes wins is because telic processes are excluded just because.

    And that is what was demonstrated at the Dover trial.

     

  • At 1:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    My apologies to Rich Hughes-


    I will delete my ignorance-driven comment

     

  • At 1:22 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    On IQ tests-

    I have taken 5, one on the internet.

    The first was in grade school, the second in high school and two others were for job placement skills/ retraining etc. Each one of those 4 were mandated.

     

  • At 1:48 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    BTW I am not a conspiracy theorist. Only in your twisted and demented mind could I be considered one.

    Perhaps you could explain the difference between:

    1. a conspiracy

    and

    2. thinking that the entirety of the research community and the entirety of the theoretical community is lying to the world and doing bad science and suppressing ID research.

    The look the same.

     

  • At 1:59 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Joe, as someone who's made more than there fair share of mistakes, it is nothing in the scheme of things.

    Be well.

     

  • At 3:36 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    2. thinking that the entirety of the research community and the entirety of the theoretical community is lying to the world and doing bad science and suppressing ID research.

    That's your problem. That's not what I think.

    Also all the alleged research community has to do is to actually drum up some research to support the non-telic position.

    So far no one in that community has had any luck at determining a non-telic scenario for the origin of living organisms.

    And no one in that community can demonstrate that culled mutations can lead to anything beyond wobbling stability.

    Their only answer to the question about the laws of nature is "They just are."

    Thumbs high on that conclusion!!!

    And why is it that scientists are leaving that non-telic community for the telic community and no one from the telic community is leaving for the non-telic nonsense?

    The ONLY way non-telic processes wins is because telic processes are excluded just because.

    The facts are conspiring against you and the non-telic position, not me.

     

  • At 3:37 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    2. thinking that the entirety of the research community and the entirety of the theoretical community is lying to the world and doing bad science and suppressing ID research.

    Not the entirety- just a few very ignorant zealots. And only some of them are doing any research.

     

  • At 3:50 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich my response was inexcusable.

    I usually have more than enough to abuse you with. And I should know that people like you keep a running tab on everything I say.

    Thanks. I have hermagoras as a spellchecker and Rich as my dicktaker...

     

  • At 5:30 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    There's a whole thread of merriment regarding you at After the Bar Closes, Joe.

    To err is human, Joe. Its tough for us being up against autodidactic polymaths like you and Dave "DaveTard" Springer.

     

  • At 7:01 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    I didn't know you were hot for rich. Can I come to the wedding?

    On more serious matters:

    1. The scientific community stands behind ToE.

    2. You say that ToE is a big line of woo being sold to the public.

    Given that both of the above are true, how can you honestly say that you don't think the scientific community is conspiring against the truth?

    So far no one in that community has had any luck at determining a non-telic scenario for the origin of living organisms.

    Do you have to be told the difference between OoL and ToE?

    And on OoL, have you been reading any of the work going on with super-cold arsenic? Very interesting, it seems that arsenic at -120ish degrees F can be a catalyst in forming self-organizing molecules.

    Check out the November 2007 Smithsonian. Sorry, I don't have the primary source.

     

  • At 7:50 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    1. The scientific community stands behind ToE.

    When people start saying that it is a sure sign they haven't a clue

    There isn't any such thing as "the scientific community".

    And even if there were that still wouldn't change the FACT that not one of those scientists can demonstrate non-telic processes doing much of anything.

    2. You say that ToE is a big line of woo being sold to the public.

    Seeing there isn't any way to objectively test many of its claims- yeah it is "a big line of woo".

    And seeing that you can't even provide a testable hypothesis that pretty much proves my point.

    So far no one in that community has had any luck at determining a non-telic scenario for the origin of living organisms.

    Do you have to be told the difference between OoL and ToE?

    Do you have to be told that if living organisms didn't arise from non-living matter via non-telic processes, then there would be no reason to infer any subsequent evolution is due solely to non-telic processes?

    The Origin of Life & Evolution- Why the Connection cannot be broken

    And do you have to be told, again, that Intelligent Design is all about origins?

    And on OoL, have you been reading any of the work going on with super-cold arsenic? Very interesting, it seems that arsenic at -120ish degrees F can be a catalyst in forming self-organizing molecules.

    Living organisms are much more than self-organizimg molecules.

    Had you any training in biology you would have known that.

    Nucleotides- the stuff that make up RNA and DNA- do NOT form outside of living organisms- at any tempreature.

     

  • At 7:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    There's a whole thread of merriment regarding you at After the Bar Closes, Joe.

    There is a long history of morons trying to ridicule those more intelligent then themselves.

    You clueless twits are no different.

    Still it is too bad that neither you nor anyone else at that forum can provide a testable hypothesis for your position.

    That is a source of merriment for IDists- to watch you moronic imbeciles blindly follow scientists who don't have a clue.

     

  • At 8:30 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Check out the November 2007 Smithsonian. Sorry, I don't have the primary source.

    What is the name of the article?

    I can only find an article on the Ganges that has "arsenic" in it.

     

  • At 10:06 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Back to the topic of the thread:

    "You claim to be able to determine design by just examining the string itself."--blipey the clueless clown

    That is a lie clowny. No IDist has ever made that claim.

    "By looking at the string, can ID tell me if it was designed or not?"--blipey

    No blipey. As with ALL scientific investigations, ID also requires a thorough investigation.

    What are we investigating? Where was the object found? What is the surrounding area?

    IOW no investigation is done in a vacuum.

    In addition blipey, thorton and Rich are perfect examples of why Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools- education cures ignorance. However that is exactly why they and their ilk cannot afford to have ID taught- they cannot afford to have their ignorance exposed.

    That is also why the theory of evolution must be presented as unassailable dogma. It is just a house of cards- all fluff and very little stuff.

     

  • At 10:00 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Nucleotides- the stuff that make up RNA and DNA- do NOT form outside of living organisms- at any tempreature.

    Proving a negative are we?

     

  • At 10:02 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    community = a group of people with related interests.

    scientists = people who do science for a living

    scientific community = a group of people who do science for a living

    This is fictional?

     

  • At 7:38 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Nucleotides- the stuff that make up RNA and DNA- do NOT form outside of living organisms- at any tempreature.

    Proving a negative are we?

    Nope, just stating a fact. And to refute what I said all you have to do is to find nucleotides that do form outside of living organisms without agency involvement.

     

  • At 7:45 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    scientific community = a group of people who do science for a living

    There are thousands of scientists who do not accept UCD via genetic accidents.

    Ever hear of Neils Bohr? A very prominent scientist who didn't accept the premise of RM & NS.

    IOW there is a scientific community that agrees with me.

    So now what do YOU have to say?

     

  • At 8:30 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    More proof that clowny cannot follow along:

    1. The scientific community stands behind ToE.

    When people start saying that it is a sure sign they haven't a clue

    There isn't any such thing as "the scientific community".

    IOW clowny, there are many scientific communities.

    But thanks for once again demonstrating your limited thinking capacity.

    So to sum it up-

    blipey admits he is ignorant of biology and proves his ignorance of ID.

     

  • At 9:36 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Nope, just stating a fact.

    Proving a negative are we?

     

  • At 9:45 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Well, sure there are, Joe. There would be a group of scientists who study climate change. There would be a group of scientists who study genetics. There would be a group of scientists who study particle physics. They all would form smaller communities, distinct from each other in various ways.

    Put them all together, and they form one very large scientific community.

    Are there scientific communities that support ToE? Sure.

    Are there scientific communities that support ID? Sure.

    Which one of those do you think is larger? By how much do you think it is larger. Do you get the point behind "Project Steve"?

    The overwhelming majority of scientists support ToE, and by a landslide majority, not just barely hanging on.

    One list will include the names of nearly every faculty member and research scientist at every research institute. The other list will include Dr. Behe (who thinks a mousetrap is irreducibly complex) and Walt Brown (who thinks all the comets were ejected from Earth into their present orbits around the SUN!--even if they are in different orbital planes!).

    To say that there is not significant agreement among scientists as to the validity of ToE, is to be amazingly blind or dishonest.

     

  • At 9:48 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Oh, can you link to a list having 1,000s of scientists on it who do not buy common descent? I would be interested in seeing that.

    Even if there are 1,000s of signatories, I would say the overwhelming number of scientists support ToE.

    However, it would make me look at arguments as to the demise of Evolution differently. Educate me.

     

  • At 3:42 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Nope, just stating a fact.

    Proving a negative are we?

    Nope, just stating a fact.

    Ya see clowny unlike you I do know something about the nuts & bolts of both biology and chemistry.

    And BTW- science is NOT done via majority rule.

    I will also note that not one of your alleged majority can substantiate the claim of universal common descent via an accumulation of genetic accidents.

    IOW to accept UCD is to do so by something other than scientific data.

    But thanks for proving you just blindly follow some alleged majority. Too bad that majority can't substantiate their claims.

    BTW the mousetrap Dr Behe desribed is irreducibly complex.

    And all experience demonstrates there isn't any educating you.

    There's just you and your willfull ignorance.

     

  • At 3:50 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    We are not discussing whether or not science is done by majority rule.

    We are discussing your claim that there are 1000s of scientists who do not buy common descent.

    For you to mention the subject. you must think that there is merit in many people thinking the same thing.

    Or does that only matter when lots of people think ID is the thing?

     

  • At 8:44 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey, this thread is about your liies and ID ignorance:

    In an attempt to explain Intelligent Design and the design detection process, blipey the clown further exposed its dishonesty and ignorance.


    "You claim to be able to determine design by just examining the string itself."--blipey the clueless clown


    That is a lie clowny. No IDist has ever made that claim.


    "By looking at the string, can ID tell me if it was designed or not?"--blipey


    No blipey. As with ALL scientific investigations, ID also requires a thorough investigation.

    What are we investigating? Where was the object found? What is the surrounding area?

    IOW no investigation is done in a vacuum.


    Stay on topic.

     

  • At 8:45 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW clowny- YOUR words:

    Have you noticed, Joe Dipshit, that I have never claimed to be a biologist?

    Have you ever seen me really argu the nuts and bolts of biology?

    Do you think I am qualified to do so? I've mentioned this to you in the past--that it is ridiculous that you want to argue with ME over these things. If you were really interested in arguing the science, you would discuss things with scientists.

     

  • At 11:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    We are not discussing whether or not science is done by majority rule.

    Yes we are. YOU brought it up and I told you that science is not done via majority rule.

    IOW YOUR WHOLE argument is "majority rules".

    Whereas my argument is strictly related to the scientific data, evidence and observations.

    And now that I have proven you are a liar, a loser and an ignoramus, there really isn't anything further to discuss with you.

    But then again you were never here to engage in a discussion so nothing is lost.

     

  • At 3:34 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So you had no reason to mention that 1000s of scientists agree with you. Yet you did mention it. Why?

     

  • At 7:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey,

    I told you the reason why I mentioned the scientists who do not agree with UCD.

    That you once again choose willfull ignorance is just solidifies reason why no one wants to deal with you:

    You are a liar, loser and ignoramus.

     

  • At 3:18 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    You have never stated your reason for mentioning that 1000s of scientists agree with you.

    Is it because you think it helps you make your case? If so, why does your citing of lots of people differ from anyone else's citing of lots of people?

    Thanks for your silence on this delicate topic.

     

  • At 7:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You have never stated your reason for mentioning that 1000s of scientists agree with you.

    Yes I have blipey.

    But thanks again for proving that you are a liar, loser and ignoramus:


    clowny said:
    1. The scientific community stands behind ToE.

    I point out that there isn't any such thing as "the scientific community" and in fact there are many scientific communities.

    I further explain that there are thousands of scientists that do not accept UCD via genetic accidents:

    There are thousands of scientists who do not accept UCD via genetic accidents.

    Ever hear of Neils Bohr? A very prominent scientist who didn't accept the premise of RM & NS.

    IOW there is a scientific community that agrees with me.

    That was the reason presented.

    So thanks for once again proving that you are a liar, loser and ignoramus.

     

  • At 7:34 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    So you think that 1000s of scientists agreeing with you is a good thing?

    But, you think that 10s and perhaps 100s of thousands of scientists not agreeing with you doesn't mean anything?

    Interesting.

    Got that list of 1000s of scientists that don't agree with common descent?

     

  • At 9:50 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So you think that 1000s of scientists agreeing with you is a good thing?

    As I have been saying- That any number of scientists disagree with the ToE refutes what you said:

    1. The scientific community stands behind ToE.

    Nothing more, nothing less.

    But, you think that 10s and perhaps 100s of thousands of scientists not agreeing with you doesn't mean anything?

    Nope, I never thought that in my life. Only a twisted mind could infer something like that from what I have posted.

    I don't care how many scientists disagree with me. If they can't substantiate their position numbers are meaningless.

    Unlike you, I understand the following:

    "Science is not a consensus activity. The accuracy of a scientific statement does not depend on the agreement of experts; it depends on verification, either through experimentation or observation."*

    (*a recent climate change paper released by the Marshall Institute)

    But again I thank you for continuing to provide evidence for the title of this thread.

     

  • At 3:52 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, what you are saying is that 100s of thousands of scientists are completely wrong about their line of work? You are saying that 100s of thousands of scientists are lying about having data to substantiate their work? You are saying that 100s of thousands of scientists are wrong about something that you are right about?

    And you are saying that this is not a conspiracy?

    If 100,000 guys look at a baseball and say "that's a baseball," while 2 guys look at a baseball and say, "that's not a baseball"...

    you are saying it is incorrect, perhaps misleading, maybe even an outright lie to say that "the community of guys thinks that this is a baseball."

    strange.

     

  • At 5:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Is that the best your twisted, demented mind can come up with?

    LoL!!!

    There isn't any scientist whose line of work demonstrates the genetic differences observed between chimps and humans can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed.

    Most, if not all, scientists are highly specialized. Their work has no bearing on whether or not genetic accidents can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery and new body plans.

    And not one of your alleged majority can substantiate the claim that genetic accidents can accumulate to construct useful parts to build new body plans.

    I knew you wouldn't understand:

    "Science is not a consensus activity. The accuracy of a scientific statement does not depend on the agreement of experts; it depends on verification, either through experimentation or observation."

    That is pretty much why that majority of scientists cannot convince the vast majority of people. And that is also why we see people leave the evolutionitwit side and join either the ID or Creation side.

    I have yet to hear of a biologist leaving either ID or Creation and joining the magical mystery mutation side.

    Numbers mean nothing if the data isn't there to support them.

     

  • At 5:22 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW- a much better analogy would be-

    100,000 guys look at an empty space and say they see a baseball, while two guys look at the same empty space and see nothing.

     

  • At 8:26 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, the community of guys don't think the empty space is a baseball?

    I would say it is not misleading to say that the community of guys thinks that the empty space is a baseball.

    You disagree?

     

  • At 7:32 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So, the community of guys don't think the empty space is a baseball?

    Just the opposite:

    100,000 guys look at an empty space and say they see a baseball,


    I would say it is not misleading to say that the community of guys thinks that the empty space is a baseball.

    No one cares what you say. People care about reality.

    And reality demonstrates that your alleged majority of scientists cannot substantiate their claim of universal common descent via an accumulation of genetic accidents.

     

  • At 6:54 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Right. I got it. You're on record as saying the 100,000 don't see a baseball--even though they say they see a baseball.

    We got it. You've been very clear. I just like it when you keep restating it.

     

  • At 8:38 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The clincher was when I told them to have a baseball game using that baseball they saw.

    All of a sudden no one could find the ball! That sort of thing happens when people think a ball exists when reality demonstrates it doesn't.

    FYI:

    Continental drift was once a minority view.

    And geocentrism was once the scientific consensus.

     

  • At 10:46 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Have you ever been to a dance class, Joe? Or how about the theatre? There are lots of baseball games that go on with that supposedly invisible baseball. You just gotta know where to look; if you ask, someone might give you a map.

     

  • At 11:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    There are lots of baseball games that go on with that supposedly invisible baseball.

    There aren't any baseball games played with an imaginary baseball.

    None, zero, nada, zilch, zip.

    But thanks for demonstrating you don't know anything about baseball.

    Stick to juggling and being a clown. Hopefully you are better at that than trying to form an argument.

    FYI:

    Continental drift was once a minority view.

    And geocentrism was once the scientific consensus.

    And while the list of scientists who disagree with UCD via genetic accidents grows, the list of scientists who can substantiate the claims of UCD via genetic accidents remains empty.

     

  • At 8:19 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe, there are certainly baseball games that go on without baseballs. As there are baseball games that go on without players, without scores, and without any other number of things you can name.

    I'll start a baseball thread if you want, so we can discuss greatest game on earth, but I'd hate for you to butcher baseball as you do almost everything else.

    So, back to my question. Have you ever been to the theatre? Even once? How about a dance recital? There are baseball games that go on without baseballs all the time.

    I've still got the map.

     

  • At 8:21 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    I've had 9 year olds play 3 innings without a baseball, Joe. They kept track of the score, the batting averages, and even errors.

    Don't speak of which you have no clue.

     

  • At 8:34 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I've had 9 year olds play 3 innings without a baseball, Joe. They kept track of the score, the batting averages, and even errors.

    They weren't playing baseball clowny. They were IMAGINING they were playing baseball.

    Huge difference. But I understand your confusion- you are a clown who lives in a world of make-believe.

    Which is similar to you imagining that scientists have the data to support UCD via genetic accidents.

     

  • At 8:38 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe, there are certainly baseball games that go on without baseballs.

    Only imagined baseball ganmes can take place without a ball.

    As there are baseball games that go on without players, without scores, and without any other number of things you can name.

    Only imagined baseball games.

    But now I understand your problem- You thinkthat if someone can imagine something then it is real.

    There are baseball games that go on without baseballs all the time.

    Only an imagined baseball game can take place without a ball.

    And imagination is NOT a replacement for reality- that is unless you are an evolutionitwit who relies on imagination because that is all you have.

     

  • At 9:25 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Ah, Joe. I thought you were SO interested in context! What happened? Not so much when it doesn't suit your purpose?

    We're discussing whether or not the scientific community stands behind common descent.

    You claim it does not.

    The question on the table is about whether or not 100,000 guys claiming to see a baseball constitute a community seeing a baseball.

    You claim that it does not.

    You've now backtracked a bit to the position of "well, they're wrong."

    That's not the current question.

    The current question is:

    If 100,000 guys see a baseball and 2 guys don't, isn't it dishonest to claim that the community of guys don't see a baseball?

    Context, asshole, context.

     

  • At 9:46 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Context? blipey you are a proven liar, loser and ignoramus.

    Here is an example:

    We're discussing whether or not the scientific community stands behind common descent.

    You claim it does not.

    I dsid NOT make that claim.

    I said there is no such thing as "the" scientific community.

    I even went further to explain:

    "Science is not a consensus activity. The accuracy of a scientific statement does not depend on the agreement of experts; it depends on verification, either through experimentation or observation."*

    (*a recent climate change paper released by the Marshall Institute)

    You've now backtracked a bit to the position of "well, they're wrong."

    I didn't say that nor anything like it.

    IOW once again you have demonstrated that you are a liar.

    I don't care how many scientists disagree with me. If they can't substantiate their position numbers are meaningless.

    Context, asshole- try it sometime.

     

  • At 9:57 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe, as explained, the scientific community is the community of people doing science for a living.

    This community of people exists.

    Stop avoiding the issue.

     

  • At 10:10 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    What constitutes a baseball game, Joe?

     

  • At 10:19 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    You failed to make a counter-argument as to the 100,000 guys, only saying that they were wrong.

    You did not address the point of whether or not the community of guys sees a baseball.

    So shut the fuck up you lying little prick.

    Just so you don't look like a complete loser, here's some advice:

    When you insult me in your next comment, don't just quote the above couple sentences.

    COME UP WITH YOUR OWN, JACKASS.

     

  • At 3:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe, as explained, the scientific community is the community of people doing science for a living.

    I know that. And I also know there are scientists who do not agree with the theory of evolution and scientists who do not agree with UCD.

    YOU don't seem to be able to grasp that.

    I then point out that science is NOT done via majority rule.

    However you, with your little-bitty brain cannot think for yourself and therefor rely totaly on those who cannot substantiate their claims.

    You failed to make a counter-argument as to the 100,000 guys,

    YOU failed to show there was a baseball. YOU are willing to take someone else's word for it.

    I challenged that word and the baseball disappeared.

    Now you are being a big cry-baby over the whole thing just because YOU cannot support YOUR position and you can't find anyone who can.

    So in your true pediphilic fashion you get all angry and stomp on the floor.

     

  • At 5:38 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    The question is not about the baseball, Joe. The question is about the community of guys.

    The situation is such:

    1. 100,000 guys say they see a baseball.

    2. 2 guys say they don't see a baseball.

    3. You say it is misleading at best to say that the community of guys see a baseball.

    I believe most rational people, given the above situation, would accept that "the community of guys" sees a baseball.

    You do not accept it. Why?

     

  • At 5:43 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Can we see that list of 1000s of scientists who don't believe in common descent yet?

     

  • At 6:21 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The situation is such:

    1. 100,000 guys say they see a baseball.

    2. 2 guys say they don't see a baseball.

    And one of those two guys says he wants them to play a game with that alleged baseball. All of a sudden no one can find it.

    Can we see that list of 1000s of scientists who don't believe in common descent yet?

    Why do you want it? So you can try to ruin their careers?

    According to Creationist websites there are at least 10,000 scientists in the USA alone, who are Creationists.

    Creationists do not accept UCD.

    If you have an issue with that number than I suggest you go to each Creation org and ask them yourself.

    And if you could find ONE of your alleged majority who could support the claim of UCD with something testable and verifiable, then it wouldn't matter.

    But that you cannot think for yourself is more than enough to prove you are an ignoramus.

     

  • At 6:44 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Would those creationist websites be the same sites that don't bother to tell us who any of those scientists are?

    The same sites that merely say "lots of people agree with us" yet never seem to tell anyone who those people are?

     

  • At 6:45 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    You're still avoiding the question, Joe.

    Is it dishonest to say that the community of guys sees a baseball if 100,000 guys say they see a baseball and 2 guys say they don't?

    Forget the baseball.

    Is this a dishonest thing to say?

    Stop avoiding the issue, Joe.

     

  • At 6:46 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    I want you to produce one list you talk about just s you can prove to the world you aren't full of shit. I'm looking out for you, Joe. Come on, you can back your claim can't you? Or are you just full of shit?

     

  • At 7:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    clowny,

    It is up to YOU to produce the scientific data which demonstrates that genetic accidents can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein macines and new body plans.

    Surely you can find ONE of those scientists who can support their position.

    Put up or shut up asshole.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home