The advantage of experience over ignorance- my response to desk jockeys Elsberry and Wilkins part II
Part 2- It gets worse-
For some reason these clueless desk jockeys think that “design” is the default position when all other nodes get passed. Not so.
To reach the design inference there has to be signs of work, counterflow or some recognizable pattern. Or else we default to “it could be explainable by some small chance event”, i.e. “we don’t know”.
To get to “design” it not only has to pass through the other nodes. It has to have that second part also.
So it looks like this peer-reviewed paper is nothing but a strawman.
Proudly strutting their strawman around, they say the following about “Charles”:
That has nothing to do with Dembski. You jerks made that up because you don’t know what you are talking about. Obviously neither did the people who “reviewed” it.
If I were Dembski I would have sought out the both of you and knocked your teeth out.
For some reason these clueless desk jockeys think that “design” is the default position when all other nodes get passed. Not so.
To reach the design inference there has to be signs of work, counterflow or some recognizable pattern. Or else we default to “it could be explainable by some small chance event”, i.e. “we don’t know”.
To get to “design” it not only has to pass through the other nodes. It has to have that second part also.
So it looks like this peer-reviewed paper is nothing but a strawman.
Proudly strutting their strawman around, they say the following about “Charles”:
Although he has not heard of Dembski's filter, he knows the logic: whatever cannot be accounted for by natural law or chance must be the result of design.
That has nothing to do with Dembski. You jerks made that up because you don’t know what you are talking about. Obviously neither did the people who “reviewed” it.
If I were Dembski I would have sought out the both of you and knocked your teeth out.
posted by Joe G @ 9:46 AM
41 Comments:
At 5:59 PM,
Olorin said…
"'Although he has not heard of Dembski's filter, he knows the logic: whatever cannot be accounted for by natural law or chance must be the result of design.' That has nothing to do with Dembski."
Of course not. Dembski says, on p. 36 of The Design Inference," The principal advantage of defining design as the set-theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity-or-chance guarantees that the three modes of explanation are mutually exclusive and exhaustive."
Now, how are those different? Oh, I see. One is worded in fancy mathematical logic.
(In addition, of course, if the filter is to work correctly, we must know beforehand every physical law that will ever be found. If we might still be ignorant of some law, then the filter will classify it as design. That is DESIGN=IGNORANCE. Interesting, no?)
At 8:40 PM,
Joe G said…
Now, how are those different?
You have to read more than ONE sentence of "The Design Inference" to understand that.
Ya see it is as I have stated- In order to reach a design INFERENCE the object/ structure/ event in question must meet TWO criteria-
1- unexplainable by laws and chance
2- show signs of work, counterflow or some recognizable pattern
You can keep ignoring that all you want but your ignorance will not change that fact.
(In addition, of course, if the filter is to work correctly, we must know beforehand every physical law that will ever be found. If we might still be ignorant of some law, then the filter will classify it as design.
No and that is why it is called a design INFERENCE.
Science is done via inference. Science does not seek to prove and it seldom concludes.
It is an inference to the best explanation given our current state of KNOWLEDGE.
And as with ALL scientific inferences future knowledge can either confirm or refute it.
IOW it appears that you don't understand how science operates.
Another desk-jockey I presume...
At 9:49 PM,
Joe G said…
(In addition, of course, if the filter is to work correctly, we must know beforehand every physical law that will ever be found. If we might still be ignorant of some law, then the filter will classify it as design. That is DESIGN=IGNORANCE. Interesting, no?)
The science of today does not wait for what the future may or may not reveal.
At 11:38 PM,
Olorin said…
“Science is done via inference.”
No. Science is done via evidence. The explanatory filter is an attempt to avoid the necessity for physical evidence of design of living organisms, since none exists. “[Design] is an inference to the best explanation given our current state of KNOWLEDGE.” What knowledge? Scientists do not infer from mere suppositions or from common sense or from abstract “likely explanations.” Evolution is inferred from evidence such as time sequences of fossils,[1] from embryology,[2] from observation of speciation events,[3] and more and more directly from genetics,[4] all converging to the inference of evolution.
If Dembski is so proud of his explanatory filter[5] then why has he never, since The Design Inference was published in 1998, actually applied it in detail to any living organism---or in fact to anything at all? Real scientists test their theories, and others corroborate their experimental results. Dembski had planned to justify it by testifying in the Kitzmiller v Dover trial in 2005, but pulled out at the last minute.[6]
“IOW it appears that you don't understand how science operates.”
I have a graduate degree in physics (and a law degree), and have spent the past 45 years working with researchers in industry and academia---the past four years primarily in the fascinating field of bioinformatics. I have also taken two undergraduate-level courses in the philosophy of science. How about yourself?
===============
[1] Tiktaalik was not discovered at random. Neil Shubin knew where to look for it, and spent three years on a small cold island---but he found it. Proto-whale fossils were searched for in a particular stretch of Indian coastline---because that’s where previous findings said they would be.
[2] How many chambers does a human heart have? When it first starts to beat, it has only one, like that of a primitive worm. Then it develops a second, with the circulatory pattern of a fish. Later, a third chamber forms, like a lizard. Finally, a fourth chamber modifies the system to the mammalian configuration.
[3] You don’‘t need to go back in time. “Ring species”such as the Ensatina salamanders in California are doing it before your eyes, right now. Nylon- and PCB-munching bacteria have evolved in the past few decades, because these chemicals did not exist in nature.
[4] The techniques used to prove paternity and relationships in court trials are exactly the same as those used to show the ancestral relationships of humans and apes, apes and mice, and so on: SINES/LINES, ERVs, CNVs, pseudogenes, and other "spandrels" of the genome that have extremely small chance probabilities.
[5] Well, maybe not. On 3 Dec, Dembski said “I've pretty much dispensed with the EF. It suggests that chance, necessity, and design are mutually exclusive. They are not.” (Then, last week, he backtracked, without saying why. Who’s to know what he thinks today?)
[6] Just after he had watched Michael Behe’s deposition on irreducible complexity and saw how it got shredded. Coincidence? I think not. (Dean Kenyon pulled the same trick, disappearing from his hotel room literally in the middle of the night before he was to be deposed in the Aguillard case.)
At 9:42 AM,
Joe G said…
“Science is done via inference.”
No. Science is done via evidence.
Umm it is the best INFERENCE given the evidence.
The explanatory filter is an attempt to avoid the necessity for physical evidence of design of living organisms, since none exists.
Umm the explanatory filter relies on physical evidence and our current understanding.
Also there is plenty of evidence for intelligent design in living organisms.
“[Design] is an inference to the best explanation given our current state of KNOWLEDGE.”
What knowledge?
The knowledge of what nature, operating freely can produce coupled with our knowledge of what intelligent agencies are capable of.
And also the knowledge that demonstrates that only life begets life.
Scientists do not infer from mere suppositions or from common sense or from abstract “likely explanations.”
It sure l;ooks that way pertaining to the theory of evolution.
As I said said "theory" cannot even muster a hypothesis.
But perhaps you would like to give it a try.
Evolution is inferred from evidence such as time sequences of fossils,[1]
Let's see more than 95% of the fossil record consists of marine inverts- which is to be expected knowing what we do about the fossilization process.
Yet in that vast majority there isn't any evidence for macroevoltion- ie universal common descent.
And there certainly isn't any evidence for any mechanism in that fossil record.
from embryology,[2]
That is false. Ernst Haeckel's drfawing were frauds.
Also Sir Gavin de Beer wrote a book titled Embryology and Evolution in which he rejected (embryonic) recapitulation.
That was in 1930. So for almost 80 years the evidence has been aggainst embryology as being evidence for evoltion.
from observation of speciation events,[3]
Umm even the most die-hard Creationist accepts speciation. They have since Karl von Linne pushed the Created Kind back to the level of Genus.
and more and more directly from genetics,[4] all converging to the inference of evolution.
Genetics is no friend of evolution either. That is because there isn't any evidence from genetics which demonstrates the physical transformations required are even obtainable via genetic changes.
If Dembski is so proud of his explanatory filter[5] then why has he never, since The Design Inference was published in 1998, actually applied it in detail to any living organism---or in fact to anything at all?
Dembski did so in "No Free Lunch" with the bacterial flagellum.
Also Dr Douglas Axe did so in these two peer-reviewed papaers
Real scientists test their theories, and others corroborate their experimental results.
Too bad there isn't any tests that can demonstrate universal common descent. Never mind UCD via an accumulation of genetic accidents.
IOW the theory of evolution is totally lacking experimental support.
And the ONLY "support" is subtle oscillations WITHIN a population.
“IOW it appears that you don't understand how science operates.”
I have a graduate degree in physics (and a law degree), and have spent the past 45 years working with researchers in industry and academia---the past four years primarily in the fascinating field of bioinformatics. I have also taken two undergraduate-level courses in the philosophy of science.
Then why didn't you know or understand tat science is done via inference - yes using the evidence- duh?
[1] Tiktaalik was not discovered at random. Neil Shubin knew where to look for it, and spent three years on a small cold island---but he found it. Proto-whale fossils were searched for in a particular stretch of Indian coastline---because that’s where previous findings said they would be.
Tiki is now being pushed aside.
Also there should be some 50,000+ transitional forms from land mammal to whale. Yet all we have is a handful of speculative fossils.
And still nothing in genetics that demonstrates the transformations required are even possible.
IOW no way to objectively test the premise.
[2] How many chambers does a human heart have? When it first starts to beat, it has only one, like that of a primitive worm. Then it develops a second, with the circulatory pattern of a fish. Later, a third chamber forms, like a lizard. Finally, a fourth chamber modifies the system to the mammalian configuration.
Again developmental biology is not evidence for evolution.
It hasn't been for over 70 years.
[3] You don’‘t need to go back in time. “Ring species”such as the Ensatina salamanders in California are doing it before your eyes, right now. Nylon- and PCB-munching bacteria have evolved in the past few decades, because these chemicals did not exist in nature.
All OK with Creation AND ID.
You don't seem to understand what is being debated.
And that alone is very funny.
[4] The techniques used to prove paternity and relationships in court trials are exactly the same as those used to show the ancestral relationships of humans and apes, apes and mice, and so on: SINES/LINES, ERVs, CNVs, pseudogenes, and other "spandrels" of the genome that have extremely small chance probabilities.
Let's see convergence and comon design can also explain genetic similarities.
[5] Well, maybe not. On 3 Dec, Dembski said “I've pretty much dispensed with the EF. It suggests that chance, necessity, and design are mutually exclusive. They are not.” (Then, last week, he backtracked, without saying why. Who’s to know what he thinks today?)
The operative worss are "pretty much". And that is because he believes he has a better way.
However he was convinced otherwise by people like me who work in the field using the EF.
[6] Just after he had watched Michael Behe’s deposition on irreducible complexity and saw how it got shredded.
Umm no one shredded anything of Behe's. Today irreducible complexity still stands.
Ya see to SHRED something requires acyual data, not empty rhetoric.
But I don't expect you to understand that.
So here is your chance-
Please provide a testable hypothesis for undirected processes.
Failure to do so will expose your intellectual cowardice.
It will also demonstrate that youir position rests on fdaith alone.
At 9:45 AM,
Joe G said…
Olorin,
You may want to read Biological Evolution: What is being debated
Then you will see tat "evolution" is not being debated. The mechanisms are.
Designed to evolve vs evolution via an accumulation of genetic accidents.
At 10:03 AM,
Joe G said…
And Olorin I also doubt your qualifications because you did not understand that the science of today does not and cannot wait for what the future may or may not reveal.
At 11:16 AM,
Joe G said…
And Olorin, please get back on-topic- which is "design" is NOT the default position because it requires more than just an elimination of chance, necessity and there interactions.
The design inference also requires signs of work, counterflow or a recognizable pattern.
And yes Olorin using the EF demands there be evidence- you know something to START the investigation/ determination as to how it came to be.
Also we know via experianec that it matters a great deal to any investigation whether or not that which is being investigated arose via agency involvement or nature, operating freely. But that maybe moot because you don't seem to understand the debate. Otherwise you wouldn't conflate the word "evolution" with undirecetd processes, ie the mechanism(s) of evolution.
At 4:32 PM,
Olorin said…
“[P]lease get back on-topic- which is "design" is NOT the default position because it requires more than just an elimination of chance, necessity and there [sic] interactions.”
Fine. Dembski’s first decision block (Design Inference, p.37) requires evidence to assign a subject to chance. The second block requires evidence to assign it to “regularity” (natural law). When we arrive at the “sp/SP” block, then, we have no evidence whatsoever for design. What is th4e “specified complexity” that will allow one to assign the subject to the design category? Is it evidence? No; a perceived pattern. What kind of perceived pattern? A snowflake has a pattern. A hurricane has a pattern. Cross-braided highly regular ridges on the beaches of Maui have patterns. Are they designed by an intelligent agency? Ah. Only “prespecified” patterns qualify. The bacterial flagellum, for example, is prespecified, because it’s 'like' an outboard motor. Before the intention of the outboard motor by Ole Evinrude in 1907, then, the flagellum was not prespecified, because the outboard motor did not yet exist. “John loves Mary” on a beach is prespecified---except to a preliterate Australian aborigine, who would suspect sand-crab trails. That is, the concept of specified pattern is totally subjective; it’s a Texas-sharpshooter concept of drawing a target around where the bullet happens to hit the side of the barn.[1] Therefore, assigning a phenomenon to design is, if not totally a default position, then certainly a subjective one.[2]
Dembski’s filter also turns statistical testing on its ear. Design Inference, p.41: "Now there is an important difference between the logic of the Explanatory Filter and the logic of statistical hypothesis testing: to end up at the filter’s terminal node labeled ‘design,’ is to sweep the field clear of all relevant chance events.... The sp/SP events exclude chance decisively....” Exactamundo. In hypothesis testing, chance is the default.[3] In the EF, assigning to “chance” requires evidence, or at least a certain a priori probability. Design is thus the default even in the third decision block. A statistician will tell you that it is impossible to eliminate “all relevant chance events.” This would require an infinite number of tests.
You are correct in saying that scientists infer conclusions. But then they test their inferences by prediction, retrodiction, experiment, and simulation. This is something that IDC has never done, or even attempted. (As noted before, testing only cases that are the focus of your inquiry do not count as verification.)
To deny evolution [4] requires, if nothing else, a denial of the evidence in 1,750 peer-reviewed journal papers per year,[5] requires concluding that 484,000 biological research scientists either have a world-wide conspiracy are seriously deluded,[6] and dismissing 61 governmental agencies and professional societies as unqualified.[7]
My brief with IDC is not that it’s wrong. It’s not science.[8] It has none of the earmarks of science, it has no testable hypotheses, no physical evidence of design events, no research program of any kind. Believe thee me, if anyone were to find any positive physical evidence that existing living organisms were intelligently designed, hios problem would not be getting published. His problem would be getting to Stockholm in time to pick up his Nobel prize. But, so far....
================
[1] In some cases, we can detect human patterns, but only because we know the physical and mental capabilities of humans, and their motives. ID creationism is totally silent as to these characteristics of their Designer.
[2] No, Dembski did not apply his filter in any methodical way to the flagellum in No Free Lunch. He tossed around a few numbers that he had pulled out of his ear. If nothing else, a real scientist would apply such a tool to known designed systems (to detect false negatives) and to known undesigned systems (false positives). To investigate only those cases which are in doubt is no test at all; one can justify either conclusion.
[3] Here Dembski plays the equivocation shell game.. In hypothesis testing, “chance” does not mean “random”; instead it is defined as “every possible outcome except the one hypothesis under investigation.”
[4] I do not conflate “evolution” with”undirected processes.” The scientific theory of evolution implies naturalistic processes. Cf., e.g., American Heritage Dictionary, “evolution:... 3. Biology. a. The theory that groups of organisms change with passage of time, mainly as a result of natural selection, so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors.”
[5] As of 2007. Versus a total output of 0.0 for ID creationism. If you draw the “discrimination” card (#3 of the 7 signs of crackpot science), remember that math PhD Dembski has never published any reviewed paper on any subject in mathematics, information science, or any other field. Michael Behe, who has tenure, has never published any paper on IDC. (He had published 40 papers before getting hooked up with the Discovery Institute; in the 15 years since then, he has published nothing at all---zero.) There are a number of Christian colleges whose biology faculty would incur no discrimination--in, fact would be highly praised--- for doing research on IDC. Have they done anything? The Biologic Institute of the DI (endowed about $4M/year) has published nothing in its 3-year existence, except for a program on the “evolution” of Chinese characters. Dembski’s own journal, “Progress in Complexity and Design” has been silent for more than 3 years. (BTW, Doug Axe admitted after publication that his 2004 paper could not justify its conclusions, since his sample size was too small by a factor of more than a billion.)
[6] Versus 3 practicing microbiologists (and no paleontologists) for IDC: Michael Behe, Ralph Seelke, and Douglas Axe. And all 3 of these accept universal common descent; the quibble only with naturalistic mechanisms.
[7] Versus 1 for IDC---the Education Ministry of Romania.
[8] I have volunteered my qualifications for judging what is and is not science, and invited you to do the same. But, so far....
At 8:32 PM,
blipey said…
Was Einstein a desk jockey, in your opinion?
Anything on a tornado on the moon yet?
At 9:11 AM,
Joe G said…
[1] In some cases, we can detect human patterns, but only because we know the physical and mental capabilities of humans, and their motives. ID creationism is totally silent as to these characteristics of their Designer.
Umm ID Creationism only exists in the minds of those wqho don't know anything about either.
So thank yoiu for once again proving you don't know very much.
[2] No, Dembski did not apply his filter in any methodical way to the flagellum in No Free Lunch. He tossed around a few numbers that he had pulled out of his ear. If nothing else, a real scientist would apply such a tool to known designed systems (to detect false negatives) and to known undesigned systems (false positives). To investigate only those cases which are in doubt is no test at all; one can justify either conclusion.
He said he applied the EF to the bac flag.
And YOU can refute that inference by demonstrating that an accumulation of genetic accidents can account for it.
One thing is for sure your rhetoric isn't going to refute anything.
As YOU said science requires EVIDENCE from which to make an inference.
[3] Here Dembski plays the equivocation shell game.. In hypothesis testing, “chance” does not mean “random”; instead it is defined as “every possible outcome except the one hypothesis under investigation.”
Reference please. A ref demonstrating that Dembski conflates chane with random.
I would say that Dembski uses "chance" in the SAME light as Monod:
Chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of creation.-Nobel Prize-winning chemist Jacques Monod
The point being, of course, that sheer-dumb-luck is “Pure chance, absolutely free but blind.”
Sheer- not mixed with extraneous elements
Dumb- lacking intelligence
Luck- an unknown and unpredictable phenomenon that causes an event to result one way rather than another
[4] I do not conflate “evolution” with”undirected processes.” The scientific theory of evolution implies naturalistic processes. Cf., e.g., American Heritage Dictionary, “evolution:... 3. Biology. a. The theory that groups of organisms change with passage of time, mainly as a result of natural selection, so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors.”
You should get your definition from an accepted BIOLOGY textbook:
From the “Contemporary Discourse in the Field Of Biology” series I am reading Biological Evolution: An Anthology of Current Thought, edited by Katy Human):
The following are just from the introduction:
Evolution can be described with a seven-word phrase: genetic change, over time, within a population. page 6
That is from a peer-reviewed supplemental text.
From a college-level text we have:
Evolution- In biology the word means genetically based change in a line of descent over time. pg 10 of Biology: Concepts and Applications Starr 5th edition.
BTW-Natural selection doesn't do anything.
And I see you have failed to provide a testable hypothesis for the premise
[5] As of 2007. Versus a total output of 0.0 for ID creationism.
ID Creationism only exists in the minds of the ignorant with an agenda.
Creation relies solely on the Bible.
ID relies solely on the data.
And evolutionism relies solely on our ignorance.
Also evolutionary scientists have NOT published an ything that would demonstrate the transformations required are even possible- nothing, nada, zip, zilch.
As I said in another thread the ONLY evidence for the "evolution" of the eye/ vision system is that we have observed varying degrees of complexity in the eye/ vision system and we "know" (wink, wink) that the original pop[ulation(s) did not have one (an eye/ vision system).
IOW NO science in that inference. Go figure.
Also I quoted Dr Axe. And that was AFTER 2004.
IOW once again you have nothing.
[6] Versus 3 practicing microbiologists (and no paleontologists) for IDC: Michael Behe, Ralph Seelke, and Douglas Axe. And all 3 of these accept universal common descent; the quibble only with naturalistic mechanisms.
I KNOW what the debate is about. YOU don't have a clue.
[8] I have volunteered my qualifications for judging what is and is not science, and invited you to do the same. But, so far....
So far you have failed to put your position in a testable hypothesis.
IOW you are proving that your position is NOT science.
Not only that you did not know that science does not and cannot wait on what the future may or may not reveal.
IOW I doubt your qualifications.
Your profile says that you are a patent attorney.
Lawyers are liars. That is just the nature of their beast.
At 9:56 AM,
Joe G said…
Fine. Dembski’s first decision block (Design Inference, p.37) requires evidence to assign a subject to chance.
Umm the first block requires evidence just to get going. Also the first block is about necessity/ regularity/ laws- IOW a high probability.
If not then it moves to the second node which is chance- intermediate probability.
The second block requires evidence to assign it to “regularity” (natural law).
You are the first two steps mixed up. And you say you are taking this from the book?
Does that mean you have reading comprehension issues?
I say yes it does.
When we arrive at the “sp/SP” block, then, we have no evidence whatsoever for design.
That would depend on the object/ styructure/ event in question.
Ya see we humans have been usuing design detection techniques for years and they work just fine- that is as long as the right people ae doing the investigation.
What is th4e “specified complexity” that will allow one to assign the subject to the design category?
Are you freakin' dense? I take it you did NOT read my opening post.
Please read Part 1 and FOLLOW the links.
That is as opposed to continuing to argue from ignorance.
Is it evidence? No; a perceived pattern.
It is evidence. Anything we observe is evidence.
And everything we observe came to be that way via some mechanism.
That is one of the basic question science asks- How did it come to be this way?
What kind of perceived pattern? A snowflake has a pattern.
Yes they do. But it is just of ice crystals. And you wouldn't know tat without the technology to see the pattern. And if you have that technology then you should also have the wherewithal to investigate further. And that investigation would lead you to conclude that snowflakes form via nature, operating freely.
THAT is how it is done.
YOU would havew knopwn that if you had any investigative experience.
The bacterial flagellum, for example, is prespecified, because it’s 'like' an outboard motor. Before the intention(sic) of the outboard motor by Ole Evinrude in 1907, then, the flagellum was not prespecified, because the outboard motor did not yet exist.
Could scientists even see the workings of the bac flag in 1907?
That is one of the reasons why undirected processes took favor. The cell was looked at as a blob of protoplasm. And as such didn't require agency involvement.
Also as I have said many times now- ALL inferences rely on our CURRENT state of knowledge.
And THAT, my ignorant opponent, proves that science is TENTATIVE. IOW future knowledge may refute or confirm the original inference.
But THAT is the nature of science.
You would have known that if you really had experience with science.
Therefore, assigning a phenomenon to design is, if not totally a default position, then certainly a subjective one.
Only in your mind and the minds of those who don't know what they are talking about.
And I would love to see thne proces that demonstrates that undirected processes nbot only account for the origin of life buit also its subsequent diversity.
IOW the anti-ID position is definitely the default position.
The design inference requires and the EF mandates that ALL other possibilities be considered FIRST.
And also the design inference requires more than just eliminating chance and necessity.
IOW it is not a default position by just eliminating chance and necessity.
Dembski’s filter also turns statistical testing on its ear.
And people like you knock logic and reasoning on their ass.
"Now there is an important difference between the logic of the Explanatory Filter and the logic of statistical hypothesis testing: to end up at the filter’s terminal node labeled ‘design,’ is to sweep the field clear of all relevant chance events.... The sp/SP events exclude chance decisively....”
Yes it does. So what?
In hypothesis testing, chance is the default.[3] In the EF, assigning to “chance” requires evidence, or at least a certain a priori probability.
SCIENCE requires evidence you moron. And again I KNOW that ANY inference is ONLY as good as the data and the people goiing over that data.
A statistician will tell you that it is impossible to eliminate “all relevant chance events.” This would require an infinite number of tests.
So you want PROOF as opposed to an inference.
IOW you are NOT interested in science.
Thank you for finally acknowledging that.
INFERENCES do NOT require tat ALL possibilities be tested. That woul;d stop science in its tracks if applied acrtoss the board.
Archaeology would be dead in its tracks.
Forensic science would wilt away.
You are correct in saying that scientists infer conclusions. But then they test their inferences by prediction, retrodiction, experiment, and simulation.
Your refusal to post a hypothesis for undirected processes tells me there isn't a test and there aren't any predictions. And forget about the experiments. There isn't anything in any experiment that demonstrates a bacterial flagellum can "evolve" in a population that never had one.
To deny evolution [4] requires, if nothing else, a denial of the evidence in 1,750 peer-reviewed journal papers per year,[5] requires concluding that 484,000 biological research scientists either have a world-wide conspiracy are seriously deluded,[6] and dismissing 61 governmental agencies and professional societies as unqualified.[7]
Again you prove you cannot even follow along.
I posted a link as to what is being debated pertaining to "evolution" and you decided to instead argue from ignorance.
"Evolution" is NOT being debated- tyhe mechanisms are.
And if your biol;ogical scientists could only substantiate their claims then ID and Creation would go away.
However we see people switching to ID because of the evidence.
So please by all means post something that supporst an acumulation of genetic accidents can do what you claim they can.
Also IDists have tested their claims. Irreducible complexity still stands and you don't have an answer for biological information.
My brief with IDC is not that it’s wrong. It’s not science.
Well IDC only exists in the minds of the willfully ignorant, so that is one of your problems.
Another is we do exist and what do you think the options are-that is other than ID and Special Creation?
And please put THAT in a testable hypothesis.
Failure to do so will prove you are an intellectual coward.
It has none of the earmarks of science, it has no testable hypotheses, no physical evidence of design events, no research program of any kind.
That is false- please read the following and actually follow the links it contains:
Supporting ID including a testable hypothesis and real evidence
But I don't expect you to read it. You seem to be happy with your ignorance and intellectual cowardice.
Believe thee me, if anyone were to find any positive physical evidence that existing living organisms were intelligently designed, hios problem would not be getting published.
Why should I believe you? You have done nothing but prove you don't have a clue.
Also it is a given that the ONLY evidence people like you will accept is a meeting with the designer(s).
And speaking of Nobel Prizes, Max Planck said the following during his acceptance speech:
"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this minute solar system of the atom together . . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind."
IOW you can go pound sand...
At 10:28 AM,
Joe G said…
default:
: a selection made usually automatically or without active consideration due to lack of a viable alternative
The EF mandates active consideration of other alternatives.
IOW Olorin, go pound sand.
At 11:56 AM,
Joe G said…
requires, if nothing else, a denial of the evidence in 1,750 peer-reviewed journal papers per year
There aren't any peer-reviewed papers that demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum can evolve in a population that never had one.
IOW exactly what do you think I am denying?
Please be specific. Or else you are an asshole.
requires concluding that 484,000 biological research scientists either have a world-wide conspiracy are seriously deluded,
Please provide the evidence which demonstrates their research relies on universal common descent via an accumulation of genetic accidents.
Otherwise it is you who is deluded.
and dismissing 61 governmental agencies and professional societies as unqualified.
You do spew quite a bit of bullshit now, don't you?
And yet you can't even provide a testable hypothesis of the premise you think means so much.
At 2:25 PM,
Joe G said…
Here is another post for you to ignore:
Bacteria: all that evolution and not one flagellum
At 5:46 PM,
Olorin said…
Incredible. Your soi-disant knowledge trumps evidence every time. You accept ID creationism[1] by inference from no experimental data whatsoever, because, gosh, you can see pattetns and complexities that you can’t understand, and only God is smarter than you are. On the other hand, you dismiss 150 years of physical evidence for naturalistic evolution [2]by demanding even more (not a dozen fossils of whale evolution, but 50,000 fossils, you proclaimed) and by merely denying experimental results.[3]
Almost all of your previous comments are wrong or non-sequitur in one way or another. To stay on subject, let’s focus on hypothesis testing, relating to the original topic of the explanatory filter. In response to my quotation of Dembski’s admission that the EF differs from hypothesis testing, you replied, “Yes it does. So what?” This demonstrates your fundamental misunderstanding of statistics.[4] So, to gauge your basic credibility in this area, how about a little quiz: (a) Several years ago, news stories related that the number of small counties in the US having low cancer rates exceeded the number of large counties with low rates. Based upon these reports, would you consider moving to Shapeless, Mass, one of those small counties having a low cancer rate? Why, or why not? (a) As CEO of Puddle-Jumper Airlines, your computer guru, “Skip” Townes, has demonstrated an algorithm that can detect terrorists with a 99% accuracy rate. Since you can expect a potential terrorist every day, among the half million other people who fly, would you spend $10 million to implement this precaution? Why, or why not?
If you don’t know that much about a subject central to your claims central to the explanatory filter, then there is not much point in discussing the matter further.[5]
====================
[1] Two courts (Kitzmiller, Cobb County) have found that ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo. Barbara Forrest’s book Creationism’s Trojan Horse lays out over a thousand references detailing their history and relationships. (She was the only witness the Discovery Institute fought to prevent from testifying, and she turned up the definitive intermediate fossil between them.)
[2] You continue to claim that there is no testable hypothesis. Well, here it is: evolution proceeds by heritable variation, overfecundity, and natural selection. (“Natural” selection is used vaguely at times. I mean it to include environmental, sexual, group, and other forms of selection.) This is the basic theory that has been tested and confirmed for a century and a half.
[3] The ascendancy of belief over evidence is illustrated in your denial of the addition of heart chambers in human embryos, citing Haeckel’s misrepresentations and Gavin de Beer’s book, even though all you have to do is dissect a few embryos at different stages of development. (In legal circles, we call this the poisoned-well fallacy.)
[4] I have taken a graduate-level course in statistical mechanics. And was chairman of the Bioinformatics Group of my 85-attorney patent-law firm, as qualifications. BTW, I’m still waiting (chirp, chirp) for your qualifications to expound upon the nature and practice of scientific research.
[5] “Lawyers are liars. That is just the nature of their [sic] beast.” So that’s your best argument, then?
At 6:42 PM,
Joe G said…
Let's see- the people who know the MOST about ID and Creation know and understand they arte NOT the same.
And your ignored all the arguments that refute that BS.
IOW you are willfully ignorant and a horse's ass to boot.
The IDC nonsense is PURE propaganda:
The logic of intelligent design tells us that it is not the same as creationism. Many proponents of intelligent design are not creationists. And more and more creationists are distancing themselves from intelligent design. Nevertheless, most critics of ID insist on equating intelligent design with creationism. While I am sure there are many critics who are sincere (although misinformed) when equating intelligent design with creationism, nevertheless, the accusation has many of the hallmarks of propaganda.
But that what happens when people talk out of their ass.
Barbara Forrest is such a person.
Kitzmiller only applies to an insignifacant little district in PA. And that was not even what the case was about. IOW the judge over-stepped the bounds of the trial and isn't in any position to make such a ruling.
Heck if he understood that sheer dumb luck was the alternative he would have laughed.
So on to your other nonsense:
You accept ID creationism[1] by inference from no experimental data whatsoever, because, gosh, you can see pattetns and complexities that you can’t understand, and only God is smarter than you are.
1- I accept that ID and Creation are separate entities. As do the people who know the most about both.
2- I came to the design inference because of the experimental data.
That data which demonstrates that IC is real.
The data that demonstrates biological information is real.
And all the data in all my posts which you choose to ignore.
On the other hand you cannot even provide a testable hypothesis for your position.
And "God" has nothing to do with it.
I am neither a Christian nor religious.
So choke on that.
On the other hand, you dismiss 150 years of physical evidence for naturalistic evolution
That is a lie. I didn't dismiss anything. I accept it for what it is.
And it isn't much.
That you refuse to comment on the Lenski fiasco and can't provide any data I asked for just proves you are nothing but a blind follower.
by demanding even more (not a dozen fossils of whale evolution, but 50,000 fossils, you proclaimed)
There is only one- Am. natans- that comes close to a transitional form.
I didn't DEMAND there be 50,000, it is just there must have been given the changes required. And it is odd that only one stands out and there is a small handful of other speculations.
and by merely denying experimental results.[3]
What results am I denying?
And I see you STILL refuse to provide a testable hypothesis for your position.
A true sign of an intellectual coward.
Pretty much like the coward Zachriel.
Your posts are full of the same nonsense that coward spews on a daily basis- all fluff, smoke and mirrors and nothing to substantiate the claims.
Here is what you say-
2] You continue to claim that there is no testable hypothesis. Well, here it is: evolution proceeds by heritable variation, overfecundity, and natural selection. (“Natural” selection is used vaguely at times. I mean it to include environmental, sexual, group, and other forms of selection.) This is the basic theory that has been tested and confirmed for a century and a half.
Tested? Tested how?
When we "test" natural selection it is only responsible for 16% of the variation. In populations over 1000 it disappears completely.
Populations vary and the variance is ALWAYS within and ALWAYS oscilates- that means to move about some central point.
Heck, as I have said you can't even point to an experiment in which a bacterial flagellum could arise in a population that didn't have one.
IOW in EVERY instance in which "evolution" has been tested it hasn't shown us to be capable of much of anything- subtle variations or decay.
[3] The ascendancy of belief over evidence is illustrated in your denial of the addition of heart chambers in human embryos,
I don't deny it. I just deny that it is evidence of evolution.
Do try to follow along.
Only assholes say developmental biology is evidence for universal common descent. That is a fact and a grasp at anything to try to ssave a "theory" that is of no practical use.
And my arguments were in all the links I provided and YOU choose to ignore.
Never-mind the fact that you don't even understand the meaning of the word "default"
And that is why you, Zach the sac, has mouthed off with absolutely nothing to refute the claim I made in the OP- the design is NOT the default position. It just doesn't match the definition.
And as for your "qualifications" I seriously doubt them.
At 6:54 PM,
Joe G said…
and this:
[2] You continue to claim that there is no testable hypothesis. Well, here it is: evolution proceeds by heritable variation, overfecundity, and natural selection. (“Natural” selection is used vaguely at times. I mean it to include environmental, sexual, group, and other forms of selection.) This is the basic theory that has been tested and confirmed for a century and a half.
Is also a hypothesis that would fit Creation. Oh it can also fit ID.
BTW you said NOTHING about the variation- how it comes about andto test that peremise.
Also heritable variation are two of the processes (inheritance being one and variation being the other that make up natural selection. As a matter of fact so is fecudity.
“Natural selection is therefore a result of three processes, as first described by Darwin:
Variation
Inheritance
Fecundity
which together result in non-random, unequal survival and reproduction of individuals, which results in changes in the phenotypes present in populations of organisms over time.”- Allan McNeil
So what you said equates to
"Evolution procedes by natural selection and natural selection."
And evolution via natural selection hasn't been observed, in the wild nor in a lab, to do much of anything.
At 11:18 PM,
Olorin said…
(a) ???
(b) ???
Chirp, chirp.
Once more: Your qualifications?
chirp, chirp, ....... chirp.
At 10:02 AM,
Joe G said…
chirp, chirp back at you.
As I said your alleged "qualifications" are in doubt.
And that is because your posts betray you.
So you can pound sand until you can prove to me that your alleged qualifications are real.
However you don't even seem to be aware of the definition of "default" and your evolutionary "hypothesis" is a joke.
Only a scientifically illiterate person would post such a "hypothesis".
One more thing- until we know which sequence or sequences of DNA are required to produce a human heart there isn't any way to test the premise that the human heart "evolved" from some other type of heart.
And we still remain ignorant as to that part of development.
So chirp all you want. It just further exposes your desperation.
At 10:04 AM,
Joe G said…
Back to the topic:
default:
a selection made usually automatically or without active consideration due to lack of a viable alternative
The EF mandates active consideration of other alternatives.
However I predict that Zachriel/ Olorin will continue to ignore that reality and continue to spew off-topic nonsense.
Just so you know- only on-topic comments will be considered.
At 10:07 AM,
Joe G said…
BTW I don't play irrelevant off-topic games- a, b.
However it hass become obvious tat is all you can do- provide a distraction in an attempt to cover your ignorance and bloviation.
At 3:26 PM,
Olorin said…
"BTW I don't play irrelevant off-topic games- a, b."
Ah. "Knowledge," when put to the test, transmogrifies to irrelevance.
"Just so you know- only on-topic comments will be considered."
Yes. All I ask further, Joe, is this: Please, please do not help your children with their science or math homework.
At 9:28 AM,
Joe G said…
Umm I have helped kids with both math and science and they have always receiced an "A".
Quack, quack, Olorin, quack, quack.
And BTW I have always received an "A" in both math and science- that is in marine biology, advanced zoology and all my engineering courses.
And just because YOU think your "quizzes" are about "knowledge" does not make it so.
However your "knowledge" is in serious doubt given your lack thereof pertaining to the definition of "default" and the non-hypothesis you presented to "test" "evolution".
quack, quack.
At 9:29 AM,
Joe G said…
Oh and it nice to see you couldn't provide the relevance of your "quiz" pertaining to the OP.
quack, quack
At 9:47 AM,
Joe G said…
(a) Several years ago, news stories related that the number of small counties in the US having low cancer rates exceeded the number of large counties with low rates. Based upon these reports, would you consider moving to Shapeless, Mass, one of those small counties having a low cancer rate? Why, or why not?
YOU have to a) provide the relevant reports- that is because I don't believe you. IOW I have to see the data for myself.
Is there a REAL county called "Shapeless" in Massachusetts?
I can't find it.
IOW it appears that you made up this scenario.
And one cannot gain knowledge from soemthing that is made-up.
So how about those reports and also the location of the county "Shapeless" in MA.
(a) As CEO of Puddle-Jumper Airlines, your computer guru, “Skip” Townes, has demonstrated an algorithm that can detect terrorists with a 99% accuracy rate. Since you can expect a potential terrorist every day, among the half million other people who fly, would you spend $10 million to implement this precaution? Why, or why not?
Oops it was a,a- not a,b.
There is a "Puddle Jumpers Airline" Is that what you meant or is this just ANOTHER MADE-UP nonsensical example?
Ya see in real-life I would perform a THOROUGH INVESTIGATION- that ios in both of your hypothetical examples.
And in hypothetical examples I can always whip out my hypothetical drink that prevents cancer and my hypothetical psychic powers tat enable me to detect terrorists with a 100% accuracy and precision.
But anyway- in the first nonsensical story I wouldn't move as I am very happy where I am.
And in the second I am not a CEO of any airline so I don't have to worry about it.
However I do provide security for airports, ports, and any other venue that homeland security requires to have our technology.
At 10:36 AM,
Joe G said…
Ah. "Knowledge," when put to the test, transmogrifies to irrelevance.
There isn't any knowledge to be gaimned from HYPOTHETICAL stories.
Only an imbecile would think there is.
Ya see in hypothetical examples I can whip out any hypothetical power I require.
That is the nature of the beast.
But it is funny, in a sad way, that you had to revert to hypothetical stories because you couldn't support your position if your life depended on it.
Therefor you desperately needed a distraction.
Too bad you had already provided a joke of a hypothesis.
quack, quack
At 12:42 PM,
Olorin said…
Wrong, and wrong. You need no further information to answer the questions; in fact you have more than enough. (The first is a true story---except for “Shapeless, Mass.” The second one I made up, but the numbers are reasonable, and the same principle has caused politicians to implement stupid policies in the past.)
The relevance to the explanatory filter was presented previously. Since it didn’t seem to sink in, here it is again. At bottom, Dembski bases the EF upon statistical reasoning and the probability of patterns, or specifications, or complexity, or “information,” or whatever undefined entity he chooses to call it this week. His reasoning is flawed.[1] The two questions do not accord with ‘common-sense’ knowledge, but will not mislead those with an elementary understanding of statistical reasoning.
==============
[1] A recent article preprint by Bradley Monton, a physicist beloved of the Discovery Institute, argues that the whole idea of basing the Design Inference upon probabilities is erroneous, regardless of what those probabilities might be. See HTTP://PHILSCI-ARCHIVE.PITT.EDU/ARCHIVE/00003997
At 2:59 PM,
Joe G said…
Prove it and prove it.
In order for me to move anywhere I need more information than just cancer statistics.
Maybe that is enough for a loser like you but that is not enough for me.
And YOU don't get to tell ME what is enough information for ME to make a choice.
IOW once again you PROVE you are nothing but a freaking loser.
Very typical of Zachriel.
The second you could never prove. As I said in any hypothetical situation I can muster hypothetical powers.
And there isn't anything yuou can do about it.
Also there isn't any relevance to the EF. Just because a loser like you claims there is does not make it so.
At bottom, Dembski bases the EF upon statistical reasoning and the probability of patterns, or specifications, or complexity, or “information,” or whatever undefined entity he chooses to call it this week.
Prove it. Ya see it is up to the person or people using it how they use it. They don't need statistacal reasoning. Just a good grasp on what nature, operating freely is capable of coupled with the knowledge of what designing agencies can do.
And again all YOU have to do to refute the design inference is to provide some actual data that supports the premise that our existence is due to sheer dumb luck.
However you can't even provide a testable hypothesis for your position.
And you certainly haven't refuted my claim in the OP- the the design inference is NOT the default position.
quack, quack Zachriel/ Olorin, quack, quack
Enough of the sock puppet- that just further proves your dishonesty.
At 3:02 PM,
Joe G said…
A recent article preprint by Bradley Monton, a physicist beloved of the Discovery Institute, argues that the whole idea of basing the Design Inference upon probabilities is erroneous, regardless of what those probabilities might be
Then it is a good thing that I do not do so.
Ya see it is erroneous to think the design inference is based on probabilities alone.
It is down-right ignorant to think so.
Now what? I predict more arm-waving...
At 3:12 PM,
Joe G said…
And Zachriel, if you think that a thorrough investigation is not necessary you just proved you are an incompetent boob.
I would never a) move from my home unless there was a very, very, very good reason and b) move top a place I didn't thoroughly investigate.
Ya see I do have a cancer beating elixir. So cancer stats wouldn't mean squat to us.
BTW as I have said- I know quite a bit about airline and airport security. THAT is my job.
And I know they don't buy things willy-nilly. The gov't performs tests, many tests. Again I know because I heve set-up our equipment for those tests.
To get into nuclear power plants there are also tests. To get into ports or railways- more tests.
IOW any CEO of an airline would have to buy approved equipment.
And most likely the equipment would be mandated- a choice of course.
But I would still take my psychic powers over any piece of equipment.
If you would like I could give you a personal demonstration.
At 10:34 PM,
Olorin said…
Your lack of understanding of Dembski’s explanatory filter, and of “desk jockeys Elsberry & Wilkins” refutations[1] of it, has been amply demonstrated. And, as Kurt Vonnegut noted many years ago, “One cannot reason with someone for whom reason does not count.” So,
Meli Kalikimaka, hapenuia, eia ho’i aloha ‘oe.
===============
[1] To keep you busy in future, here are some critiques of Dembski by Christian philosophers:
>> Del Ratzsch, "Dembski's Design Inference", in Nature, Design and Science. SUNY Press, 2001.
>> Robin Collins, "An Evaluation of William A. Dembski's The Design Inference," in Christian Scholar's Review, vol. 30:3 (Spring 2001).
>> Michael J. Murray, "Natural Providence (or Design Trouble)", Faith and Philosophy 20:2 (July 2003), pp. 307-327; "Natural Providence: Reply to Dembski", Faith and Philosophy 23:3 (2006), pp.337-41.
>> Timothy McGrew, "Toward a Rational Reconstruction of Design Inferences", Philosophia Christi 7:2 (2005), pp. 253-298.
Also, a more general article in the peer-reviewed journal Matehmatical Intelligencer: Jeffry Shallit, “How Creationists Abuse Mathematics.”
At 10:48 PM,
blipey said…
Do you ever take this stuff up in public, Joe? You know, by actually walking down to the university and handing those evil scientists their asses?
You should try it some time. You could really improve your corner of New England by taking on the atheist establishment and letting them now what JOE Six Pack has to offer.
Do it! Do it! Do it! Slay the professors and scientists in public, Joe. Don't let you fabulous intellect go to waste.
Out of the basement and into the Collegial Dens of Iniquity!!!!
At 10:13 AM,
Joe G said…
Your lack of understanding of Dembski’s explanatory filter, and of “desk jockeys Elsberry & Wilkins” refutations[1] of it, has been amply demonstrated.
When, where and by whom?
YOU certainly have done no such thing.
However YOU have proven that you don't know anything about investigation, the EF nor ID.
And you have also proven that the "theory" of evolution cannot even muster a hypothesis.
Also have proven to be a know-nothing quack.
So I thank you for all of that.
Del Ratzsch, "Dembski's Design Inference", in Nature, Design and Science. SUNY Press, 2001.
Read it and it doesn't do what you think it does.
And not one of your references can support te premise that our existence is due to sheer dumb luck.
There aren't any predictions to be made from it and it is untestable.
Also you do realize tat people who have never heard of Dembski use te EF?
As for desk jockeys Elsberry & Wilkins”- I have soundly refuted their claims and along the way demonstrated that ou chumps don't even understand the word "default".
IOW onnce agin your comment proves tat myou are nothing but a sock-puppet piece of shit.
One more thing- I will put up $10,000.00 to debate you in a public forum on this matter.
quack, quack Zachriel, quack, quack
At 10:40 AM,
Joe G said…
"One concern, expressed by people who've only heard of the filter second hand,is that it assigns merely improbable events to design. But that clearly is not the case since, in addition to identifying complexity or improbability, the filter needs to identifya specification before attributing design." Wm Dembski page 89 of "The Design Revolution"
One for me.
"The prospect that further knowledge will upset a design inference poses a risk for the Explanatory Filter. But it is a risk endemic to all of scientific inquiry. Indeed, it merely restates the problem of induction, namely that we can be wrong about the rtegularities (be they probabilistic or necessitarian) which operated in the past and apply in the present. Wilkins and Elsberry act as if no amount of investigation into a phenomenon is enough to reasonably rule out ntural necessities and chance processes as its cause. Yet if design in nature is real, their recommendation ensures we'll never see it." ibid page 91
Two for me.
And BTW I have 4 decades of investigative experience- as a naturaliist, engineer (applied science) and in fault analysis.
My expertise has been used in archaeology, zoology, and technology.
During these 4 decades I have had to figure out the CAUSE- as in "how did this come to be this way?" Which is one of the main questions science asks.
And in every instance I used the EF or something very similar to it.
And such a process is used today.
Or do you think that archaeologists and forensic scientists flip a coin?
That's it isn't it?
YOU think design detection is done via a flip of a coin! However assholes like you use a double-headed coin and call "heads" for undirected processes.
That's just great- a person without investigative experience (as evidenced from your comments) tells a person with vast investigative experience how to investigate!
$10,000.00- put up or shut up.
At 12:56 PM,
Joe G said…
Do you ever take this stuff up in public, Joe?
Yes, I do.
You know, by actually walking down to the university and handing those evil scientists their asses?
What "evil scientists"? It would help if you were a bit more specific.
However it is obvious all you can do is throw around vague accusations and challenges.
It is also clear that YOU cannot provide a testable hypothesis for YOUR position.
But anyway I do plan on caling out Eugenie Scott and Glen Branch.
Hopefully they will try to sue me for slander and I will then get a chance to prove my points in Court.
You could really improve your corner of New England by taking on the atheist establishment and letting them now what JOE Six Pack has to offer.
A) What does my physique have to do with anything and B) Atheists have nothing to offer.
As a matter of fact the atheistic position of sheer dumb luck is totally bankrupt.
And tat is why they ALWAYS conflate "evolution" with the mechanisms.
IOW they act as if all alternatives only accept stasis- ie no change.
They love to wallow in their own ignorance.
So we will see clowny.
I doubt any charges will be brought against me because there isn't any way they can win the case.
And there isn't any way to not have their position exposed as a sham if they take me to Court.
Stay tuned for the post...
At 1:00 PM,
Joe G said…
BTW I have talked with scientists at universties.
Not one has been able to support the position of sheer dumb luck.
As a matter of fact when pressed on this they seem to reflect a little bit more on the debate.
(Ya see I ask if NOT via intelligent design, what is the option(s) and can yu please put that into a testable hypothesis.
Then we talk about how Hawking "explains" the laws of nature by declaring "They just are (the way they are."))
At 3:45 PM,
Joe G said…
BTW Olorin,
I have provided an opportunity for you to elaborate on the "hypothesis" you provided.
chirp, chirp you quack
At 9:28 PM,
blipey said…
Publish your results, Joe! The world needs to know how utterly stupid the Atheist faggots that call themselves professors are!
You can make the world a better place. All you have to do is reveal the Atheist, chance-worshiping fuckheads for the dimwits they are.
Why are you holding back? Come on, Joe. Save the world.
At 9:51 AM,
Joe G said…
Publish your results, Joe!
That is what I am waiting for the anti-IDists to do!
What are THEY waiting for?
And why is it that YOU cannot provide anything that would support YOUR position?
The world needs to know how utterly stupid the Atheist faggots that call themselves professors are!
Thanks to Dawkins, Provine and others, the world knows how utterly stupid they are.
And it is made obvious by the lack of data to support their position.
You can make the world a better place.
I have made MY world a better place.
All you have to do is reveal the Atheist, chance-worshiping fuckheads for the dimwits they are.
Been there, done that. And others have done so too.
Ya see it appears that atheists are so stupid tey don't know when they have been beaten. And as long as tey control the media and journals, they will continue to remain ignorant.
But ignorance is the nature of tehir beast.
Now how about it clowny?
Can YOU provide a testable hypothesis for your position?
Can you at least find one tat one of those professors put forth?
Or are you still just a blind follower?
At 12:49 PM,
Joe G said…
The world needs to know how utterly stupid the Atheist faggots that call themselves professors are!
Do you have names and addresses? Just include the chance-worshipping faggots.
And professors can have knowledge that does not pertain to their chance-worshipping beliefs. IOW "stupid" is a relative word.
So again you would have to be a bit more specific.
Post a Comment
<< Home