Intelligent Reasoning

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

Monday, June 22, 2009

Yes, Design is a Mechanism- an idiot's guide to reality

A mechanism is a a process, technique, or system for achieving a result-

Design is to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan.

A plan is a process, technique, or system for achieving a result.

Therefor design is a mechanism.

It is a very simple and basic thing to understand.

As a matter of fact the only people who don't think that design is a mechansim are uneducated people.

Note to blipey the ignorant clown: If you arte too stupid to understand the difference between a patrilineage and a paternal family tree then you are too stupid to understand that design is a mechanism.

130 Comments:

  • At 9:58 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Okay, I can post it here, too (or could, if the blog owner wasn't a douchebag):

    I can design a car on a napkin--that's not a mechanism to make a car. The mechanisms for making a car would include things like WELDING, CUTTING, WIRING.

    You do see the difference between "design" and "welding" right?

     
  • At 9:59 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    You must have a good reason for censoring my comment. Is it that you have no way of answering it without looking stupid? If not, why not give the answering thing a shot?

     
  • At 10:20 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Design is a mechanism?

    (Q) Why does rain fall?
    (A) design!

    (Q) how do steam trains work
    (A) design!

    (Q) what causes lightning
    (A) design!

    (Q) Why do mothers love their children?
    (A) design!

    I think that's exposed the utility of 'design as a mechanism'

     
  • At 2:22 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey,

    You are a piece of shit who doesn't even understand the difference between a patrilineage and a paternal family tree.

    Dictionaries and commonly accepted definitions don't mean anything to you.

    Now to address your ignorance and further prove that yoyu are a waste of skin:

    Yes you can design a car on a napkin- perhaps not you but someone with the capabilities could.

    And guess what?

    That car had better be built by that design- or the detailed designed procedure that came after it.

    Ya see welders don't just weld anything anywhere at any time.

    They weld as the design tells them.

    Their welding techniques are also designed.

    Ya see clownie designing things and the procedures that go into making them the way they were designed is what I did for a living.

    Successful companies don't leave things to chance.

    It is design all the way down.

    Then again you are an ignorant fuck who doesn't know the difference between a patrilineage and a paternal family tree.

     
  • At 2:32 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Design is a mechanism?

    Yes, according to the standard and accepted definitions of both words, design is a mechanism.

    However you appear to be too stupid to understand that even though I presented those definitions.

    Once agin for those not as ignorant as blipey and Richie:

    design: to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan-

    Also

    to conceive or execute a plan


    Then we have mechanism: a process, technique, or system for achieving a result.

    So you can do things by design, ie a process, technique, or system for achieving a result, or weld the rear-view mirror to the inside of the trunk, like blipey's company would.

     
  • At 2:48 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You must have a good reason for censoring my comment.-

    Yes- you are an ignorant piece of shit maggot-eating loser.

     
  • At 2:51 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Another point-

    Things like this are settled by forensics- did this happen by nature, operating freely?

    Was it an accident?

    Did someone intend for it to happen? IOW did this happen by design?

    Again I don't expect the moron twins to understand that...

     
  • At 2:58 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And clownie,

    If I am a douchebag that makes you the shit that the douche was designed to get rid of.

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

    (Q) how do steam trains work
    (A) design!


    Of course they do.

    Or do you think someone just happened to put one together and it started working?

    If the steam trains didn't work as designed then most likely there was or would be a problem.

     
  • At 3:54 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Um, Joe.

    What's the difference between "designing" and "welding"? Perhaps there is more than one difference, maybe you could clue us in?

    I'm not claiming that a car isn't designed. I'm claiming that design is not an active mechanical process.

    I believe you re claiming that design is an active mechanical process. If I am right, perhaps you could explain how welding and designing are alike? If I am wrong, perhaps you could explain (explaining really doesn't involve a dictionary) how designing is a MECHANISM?

     
  • At 4:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Umm blipey,

    what's the difference between a patrilineage and a paternal family tree?

    Ya see maggot-muncher, you can't even get that straight and you sure as heck don't seem to understand English.

    I posted the standard and accepted definitions of both design and mechanism that prove design is a mechanism.

    So perhaps YOU can tell me what part of those definitions don't you understand.

    Ya see I am under the impression that trying to explain things to you is pointless and useless as you are too stupid to understand anything beyond juggling.

     
  • At 4:23 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Welding is a physical process. Designing is not a physical process. Perhaps we could start there. Do you agree or disagree?

     
  • At 4:36 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I posted the standard and accepted definitions of both design and mechanism that prove design is a mechanism.

    So perhaps YOU can tell me what part of those definitions don't you understand.

    And yes when you do things by design you are engaging in a physical process.

    When a car is built BY DESIGN it is a physical process.

    And that plan, ie design, has to be followed or else problems show up later.

    But again you are a clown and don't know anything about design nor designing.

     
  • At 4:37 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What's the difference between a patrilineage and a paternal family tree?

    Ya see maggot-muncher, you can't even get that straight and you sure as heck don't seem to understand English.

     
  • At 4:45 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Ah, I see you agree with me. You are now stating, "when you do something by design..."

    This means that you have a design and then you implement the design by DOING something. It is the DOING that is the mechanism, Joe. Otherwise, you would just say that the car is built BY design, not by IMPLEMENTING design.

    What exactly is the DOING part you speak of?

     
  • At 4:58 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe, look through your damn blog. I've answered that question at least 4 times. One more time, and then you'd better never ask me again. Instead, you could concentrate on answering questions yourself.

    Paternal Family Tree = A representation or way of tracing familial relations through the father.

    Patrilineage = A way of tracing the sons of a family through generations.

    Your turn; start with any outstanding question you'd like.

     
  • At 5:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Ah, I see you agree with me. You are now stating, "when you do something by design..."-

    You are a mental cluster-fuck.

    I HAVE BEEN SAYING EXACTLY THAT FOR YEARS.

    design - to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan-

    Then we have mechanism: a process, technique, or system for achieving a result.

    So you can do things by design, ie a process, technique, or system for achieving a result, or weld the rear-view mirror to the inside of the trunk, like blipey's company would.

    Another point-

    Things like this are settled by forensics- did this happen by nature, operating freely?

    Was it an accident?

    Did someone intend for it to happen? IOW did this happen by design?

    Again I don't expect the moron twins to understand that...

    This is all so simple it is amazing that you just can't understand it.

     
  • At 5:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe, look through your damn blog. I've answered that question at least 4 times. One more time, and then you'd better never ask me again. Instead, you could concentrate on answering questions yourself.

    Paternal Family Tree = A representation or way of tracing familial relations through the father.

    Patrilineage = A way of tracing the sons of a family through generations.
    -

    Examples of both so that I know you understand the concepts.

    Then an apology for months of trying to pass off a patrilineage as a paternal family tree.


    That would be a start.

    Then we can began with all the science stuff you have been ignoring.

     
  • At 5:22 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW design as a mechanism is just as valid as random variations and natural selection as a mechanism.

     
  • At 5:52 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    I see you didn't actually address my argument. There is a difference between designing and building. Perhaps you could elaborate on that? Or do you think they are the same thing?

     
  • At 5:53 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    No, Joe. Mutation is an actual physical process that in and of itself makes physical changes. Design does nothing in and of itself. Perhaps you could elaborate on this difference?

     
  • At 6:01 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey,

    Until YOU specify what is wrong with my argument or specify what it is that you don't understand about it, I can't help you.

    You agree that something can be done by design.

    That alone proves that design is a mechanism.

     
  • At 6:09 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Mutation is an actual physical process that in and of itself makes physical changes.-

    But I did NOT say "mutation" asshole.

    Why is it that you always twist what I say then respond to your twisted version?

    RANDOM VARIATION- ie willy-nilly, ie genetic accidents.

    Designed to evolve (evolved by design) vs. evolution via an accumulation of genetic accidents.

    Design does nothing in and of itself.-

    According to the definitions "design" is many things. One of those being a mechanism- as in a way or means of accomplishing something.

    Also you are so narrow minded- narrow minds are easily twisted- that you don't understand that when I say "design is a mechanism" I mean that in a very general way.

    This you could have understood had you actually read my blogs.

    A mechanism is a way of producing a result:

    You can do things by design (ID) OR you can do it willy-nilly (your position- ie culled genetic accidents).

     
  • At 6:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Examples of a patrilineage and a paternal family tree and an apology for continually confusing the two.

     
  • At 6:21 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    design-the art or action of producing such a plan or drawing

    Notice the words ACTION OF PRODUCING-

    design:
    2. transitive and intransitive verb- plan and make something: to plan and make something in a skillful or artistic way

    Notice the words PLAN AND MAKE

     
  • At 9:16 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    As Midwifetoad notes:

    "In the universe the rest of us live in his syllogism is known as the fallacy of equivocation."

     
  • At 11:05 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe, I very clearly stated whats wrong with your argument. That you are a whiny, weaseling, little dipshit is not my problem.

    Once again:

    DESIGNING IS NOT A PHYSICAL PROCESS IN AND OF ITSELF. IT DOES NOTHING BY ITSELF. WELDING, FOR EXAMPLE, IS A PHYSICAL PROCESS>

    Should I make the font larger, or do understand my claim now?

    Perhaps you could address the specific problem that I have raised not fewer than 5 times in this thread?

     
  • At 2:11 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yet according to the definition it is a physical process- design is defined as the action of producing.

    Action of producing is a physical process.

    You have even agreed that something can by done by design.

    Seeing that "design" is not a time reference it must relate to "how"- as in mechanism.

    That you are too stupid to understand that is not my problem.

    Again forensic science uses this in trying to understand what happened.

    So the bottom line is you have an issue with all the dictionaries and reality.

     
  • At 2:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Well Richie, evolutionitwits do know about equivocation.

    Along with ignorance it is all they have to further their position.

     
  • At 2:29 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Thanks for the red herring.. but you've been found out (again)

     
  • At 3:15 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thanks for another vague and meaningless comment.

    Your ignorance has been over-exposed.

     
  • At 3:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To sum this up I have made a claim- design is a mechanism.

    I have provided standard and well accepted definitions of both words which proves my case.

    In response I get grunts and groans and other monkies throwing shit safely from their tree, but zero substance.

    But then again I didn't expect anything else...

     
  • At 3:38 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Did someone say red herring?

    The following is an excellent example of a red herring:

    (Q) Why does rain fall?
    (A) design!

    (Q) how do steam trains work
    (A) design!

    (Q) what causes lightning
    (A) design!

    (Q) Why do mothers love their children?
    (A) design!

    I think that's exposed the utility of 'design as a mechanism'
    -

    and then there is:

    As Midwifetoad notes:

    "In the universe the rest of us live in his syllogism is known as the fallacy of equivocation."
    -

    So yes bitch, you know quite a bit about red herrings.

     
  • At 6:18 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Joe, thanks for making my point for me. I employ the term 'design' as you suggest it could be used. How come Dembski then doesn't want to enter into 'just so mechanistic stories' then? Because the context he is talking about is the physical fabrication, not the mental planing of creation. Conflating the two, as you do, leads to the meaningless sophistry of my example.

     
  • At 6:19 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "I, Joe G, declare myself the winner" - and teenage girls everywhere swooned.

     
  • At 6:28 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich,

    Thanks for proving that you are fucking stupid.

    According to the definition design is a physical process- design is defined as the action of producing.

    Action of producing is a physical process.

    IOW Richie you only think I am conflating mental planning with physical fabrication.

    The fact is design covers both.

    I have provided the standard and well accepted definition of design that says exactly that.

    That you have refused to understand that simple and basic fact just further demonstrates your willfull ignorance.

    What Dembski is avoiding, and for the reason I have already presented, is having to come up with a SPECIFIC methodology of implementation.

    Ya see you don't have to know exactly how BEFORE you can reach a design inference.

     
  • At 6:29 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I employ the term 'design' as you suggest it could be used.-

    Again- that you think you did just proves you are a dolt.

     
  • At 6:30 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Reproduced from above so that Richie the ignorant can ignore it again:

    design-the art or action of producing such a plan or drawing

    Notice the words ACTION OF PRODUCING-

    design:
    2. transitive and intransitive verb- plan and make something: to plan and make something in a skillful or artistic way

    Notice the words PLAN AND MAKE

     
  • At 6:34 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Umm the facts say that I am right and you and blipey are wrong- as well as anyone else who agreed with you.

    That your only "argument" is ignorance and misrepresentation pretty much says it all.

     
  • At 6:54 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And if you want specific (design implementation) mechanisms, well there are artificial selection and directed mutation.

    Directed mutation is discussed by Dr Lee Spetner in his book "Not By Chance". They are part of his non-random evolutionary hypothesis.

    But I've been over and over this and obviously you just refuse to understand the debate.

     
  • At 6:58 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Going back to an example (something you fail to produce yourself):

    Step one, I design a car on a napkin.

    Step two, the car is finished.

    Does this seem about right?

     
  • At 7:46 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Going back to an example (something you fail to produce yourself):

    Step one, I design a car on a napkin.

    Step two, the car is finished.

    Does this seem about right?
    -

    Only at blipey motors where they weld the rear-view mirror to the inside of the trunk.

    An example:

    Step 1- Buy something with many parts that requires assembly

    Step 2- Assemble the product per the instructions, ie by design.


    But anyway what do you have against dictionaries?

     
  • At 7:47 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I have provided valid references to support my claim.

    All blipey and Richie can offer is their willfull ignorance..

    Then again they are evolutionitwits for a reason...

     
  • At 8:04 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    How does the the design tell you to assemble the parts? Does it matter? Or can I just use any process I want?

    Is it your contention that the process described in the instructions are the same thing as the instructions?

    Back to my example (so we are talking about actual things):

    I write the words "weld bumper body".

    Do I actually have to weld the bumper to the body for it to happen or do I merely have to write the words and it is done?

     
  • At 8:04 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    As Bill Clinton is your hero, could you give me a definition for the word "is"?

     
  • At 8:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    How does the the design tell you to assemble the parts?-

    As per the instructions.

    You could do it left-handed or right-handed.

    You could do it standing on your head.

    Does it matter? Or can I just use any process I want?-

    As long as the instructions are followed- the instructions are the process.

    I am sure they don't care if you use a power screw-driver or not.

    Is it your contention that the process described in the instructions are the same thing as the instructions?-

    It is my contention that if you are following the instructions then you are doing it by design.

    Back to my example (so we are talking about actual things):-

    Except you don't know anything about design nor mechanisms.

    I write the words "weld bumper body".-

    That doesn't even make any sense.

    Do you have any knowledge of cars?

    Do you have any knowledge of anything beyond juggling?

    Do I actually have to weld the bumper to the body for it to happen or do I merely have to write the words and it is done?-

    If you try to weld a bumper to a Corvette you're going to have issues.

    Do you know what the main issue is?

    But if you are welding per the instructions and per the welding instructions, then you are welding by design.

    No one assembles a car by welding willy-nilly.

     
  • At 8:37 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    As Bill Clinton is your hero, could you give me a definition for the word "is"?-

    Slick Willy is my hero as all the child molesters are your heroes.

    Ooops, nevermind all the child molesters ARE your heroes.

    So I take it you do have an issue with dictionaries and you think that should be my problem.

    Amazingly pathetic...

     
  • At 9:19 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Okay, another example. Perhaps you'll actually have the balls to address the issue and not make up shit. I doubt it, but what the hell.

    I write the instruction:

    "Unscrew lid from peanut butter jar with our hand."

    Do I actually have to unscrew the lid to get the jar open? Or is merely writing the instruction enough to get the job done?

    Please address the issue you coward.

     
  • At 10:01 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe, you should really pay attention to people making fun of you. You might get the references if you got out of the basement.

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

    LoL!!!

    I have provided standard and well accepted definitions that prove design is a mechanism.

    Both you and Richie are too stupid to understand what is written in a dictionary.

    Until you explain why dictionary definitions are invalid when determining a definition of a word I don't have anything else to say.

    THAT is the issue which you ignore because you are the coward.

     
  • At 7:25 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe, you should really pay attention to people making fun of you.-

    Yes blipey ignorant people often make fun of people much smarter than they are.

    It is all they have.

     
  • At 9:05 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Design is a mechanism by definition.

    The people who refuse to understand that basic fact have the problem.

    And it is up to them to explain why standard and well accepted definitions are not acceptable when defining words.

     
  • At 10:31 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mechanism

    Main Entry: mech·a·nism
    Pronunciation: \ˈme-kə-ˌni-zəm\
    Function: noun
    Date: 1662

    1 a: a piece of machinery b: a process, technique, or system for achieving a result
    2: mechanical operation or action : working 2
    3: a doctrine that holds natural processes (as of life) to be mechanically determined and capable of complete explanation by the laws of physics and chemistry
    4: the fundamental processes involved in or responsible for an action, reaction, or other natural phenomenon — compare defense mechanism

    Your *very* narrow scope only adresses (1) when it is clear that the discussion is regarding (1),(2),(3) and possibly (4). You are either not very smart or a sophist.

     
  • At 10:32 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    So the following sequence is correct according to Joe Gallien:

    1. Write the words "unscrew cap from peanut butter jar with your hands".

    2. The peanut butter jar is open.

    You should really publish this work, Joe. It will overturn all of modern cooking, not to mention physics. You'll find your name in lights like you always wanted and people will actually care what you say.

    Unless, of course, there's something wrong with the above sequence....

    Why is it again that you can't address the question?

     
  • At 10:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    Your *very* narrow scope only adresses (1) when it is clear that the discussion is regarding (1),(2),(3) and possibly (4). You are either not very smart or a sophist.-

    Because you are stupid I am a sophist?

    Yeah, that makes sense.

    Also that you think you can tell me what I am discussing is very amusing.

    And all it takes is one of the standard and accepted definitions to match.

    That you can't understand that proves you are stupid.

    A mechanism can be a thing or a way of producing that thing.

    Design can be a thing or a way of producing that thing.

    Therefor design can be a mechanism.

     
  • At 10:41 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey,

    Either address the following or admit youy are a clueless tool:

    Design is a mechanism by definition.

    The people who refuse to understand that basic fact have the problem.

    And it is up to them to explain why standard and well accepted definitions are not acceptable when defining words.

     
  • At 12:55 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Again, you equivocate.

    The discussion is clearly regarding physical manufacture.

    dembski:

    http://www.counterbalance.org/id-wd/natur-frame.html

    "The point at issue for him is this: Design is unproblematic when it refers to something being conceptualization by a mind to accomplish a purpose; but when one attempts to attribute design to natural objects that could not have been formed by an embodied intelligence, design must imply not just conceptualization but also extra-natural assembly. It's the possibility that intelligent design requires extra-natural assembly that Van Till regards as especially problematic (most recently he has even turned the tables on design theorists, charging them with "punctuated naturalism" -- the idea being that for the most part natural processes rule the day, but then intermittently need to be "punctuated" by interventions from a designing intelligence). Van Till likes to put his concern to the intelligent design community this way: Design can have two senses, a "mind-like" sense (referring merely to conceptualization) and a "hand-like" sense (referring also to the mode of assembly); is intelligent design using design strictly in the mind-like sense or also in the hand-like sense? And if the latter, are design theorists willing to come clean and openly admit that their position commits them to extra-natural assembly?"



    You only address the 'pre-production' component of teh design processes, which simply isn't good enough. Clearly there would be no finished product if you stopped there:


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design#Typical_steps

     
  • At 12:58 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    You equivocate between 'conceptualize' and 'fabricate'. Conceptualization does not yield physical manifestations. Please focus on the fabricate component.

    I'm also saving this thread.

     
  • At 1:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich,

    Design can relate to BOTH the conception AND the production, ie physical manufacture.

    That much is evidenced by the definition of design- the definition you keep ignoring.

    BTW I am only talking about the physical fabrication when I say design is a mechanism.

    As I said you can do something by design or you can do it willy-nilly.

    Organisms either evolve (or evolved) by design or they evolve willy-nilly, ie an accumulation of genetic accidents.

    Even Richie's quote mine supports what I have been saying:

    Design can have two senses, a "mind-like" sense (referring merely to conceptualization) and a "hand-like" sense (referring also to the mode of assembly);

    Mode of assembly is the physical manufacture.

    And yes this thread will be saved as proof that you and blipey are an accumulation of genetic accidents.

     
  • At 1:41 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "BTW I am only talking about the physical fabrication when I say design is a mechanism."

    More details please. Are there any physical forces in play?

    Tell us more about the mode of assembly, which is what everyone (including dembski) but you have been talking about.

     
  • At 1:42 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Even Richie's quote mine..."


    The quote was complete, referenced and in context. Do you know what a quote mine is?

     
  • At 2:55 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "BTW I am only talking about the physical fabrication when I say design is a mechanism."

    More details please.-

    Details pertaining to what?

    I have already provided the relevant definitions that demonstrate design relates to both the conception and the fabrication.

    Are there any physical forces in play?-

    Yes when you are doing something by design you are involved with the action of producing.

    Tell us more about the mode of assembly, which is what everyone (including dembski) but you have been talking about.-

    For what?

    I take it you don't read my posts, or you have very, very selective retention skills.

    I have provided the definitions that clearly state design relates to both the conception and the assembly.

    Rich provides a quote that says EXACTLY that.

    There isn't anything else I can do.

     
  • At 2:58 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Even Richie's quote mine..."-


    The quote was complete, referenced and in context. Do you know what a quote mine is?-

    It's a quote-mine Rich because you had/ have absolutely no idea what it contained.

    Ya see Rich had you understood the quote you would have understood the following:

    Design can have two senses, a "mind-like" sense (referring merely to conceptualization) and a "hand-like" sense (referring also to the mode of assembly);

    Mode of assembly is the physical manufacture.

    That you didn't understand it then and still don't, proves you are beyond reason.

     
  • At 4:46 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Mode of assembly is the physical manufacture." - which is what everyone (but you) is talking about. We'd like to know, how, as in "this force does that", not your cowardly, sophist "design!".

    And it seems you don't know what "quote mine" means - you don't seem to understand a lot of things, Joe.

     
  • At 4:48 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    You are probably the most dishonest person I've conversed with. Your inability to give a straight answer is amazing to behold. You and the ID movement deserve each other.

     
  • At 8:36 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Ya Rich and you are one of the stupidest people I have ever conversed with.


    As I said you are an excellent example of an accumulation of genetic accidents.

     
  • At 8:45 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW Richie, it is you who doesn't understand what "quote mining" is.

    That is because you rely on ignorant driven sources like wikipedia.

    Quote mining is not merely taking someone out-of-context.

    So educate yourself:

    quote mining:

    Quote mining is the practice of using the words of partisans against them to undermine support for the viewpoint held by the partisans. Quote mining does not refer simply to taking a quote out of context, as there is already a well-understood phrase for that. Rather, the charge of "quote mining" reflects an objection to quoting someone for criticizing his own belief system, on the theory that if he still believes in the system then it is somehow unfair to quote his criticism of it.-

    You know what I like best about you and blipey?

    When you dickheads say I am wrong it is a sure sign that I am right.

     
  • At 8:50 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    We'd like to know, how, as in "this force does that", not your cowardly, sophist "design!".-

    As opposed to your cowardly, sophist "random variation and natural selection".

    Ya see Rich everyone would like to know how, as in this mutation did this, that mutation does that.

    But you never provide anything.

    Now you expect ID to have all the answers before it can be accepted.

    Yet in 150 years since Darwin's "On the Origins of Species" no one even knows if eyes/ vision systems can evolve.

    Nothing of any use and nothing to support your position.

     
  • At 11:41 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Right, Joe. I'm putting you down for thinking that merely writing the statement "open the peanut butter jar" actually opens the peanut butter jar. I'm not sure how you manage to feed yourself.

    Have you actually tried to live merely by writing things down?

    Would you advise people to live merely by writing things down, or would you suggest that they actually DO things?

    Hilarious.

     
  • At 8:53 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Right, Joe. I'm putting you down for thinking that merely writing the statement "open the peanut butter jar" actually opens the peanut butter jar.-

    Well you are a dishonest piece of shit so I wouldn't expect anything else from you.

    Ya see clownie I said something quite different.

    I said if you are following instructions then you are doing it (whatever iy is) by design.

    IOW once again you have proven that you are stupid, ignorant and dishonest.

     
  • At 9:38 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    And the thing you've never addressed at all. In fact, you've gone to hilarious pains to not even mention it or acknowledge that other people have mentioned it is THIS:

    What are you doing when you follow instructions?

    Perhaps this time, you can address the issue? Or at least mention it?

    Nope. Thought not. Please continue.

     
  • At 11:28 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    You just quoted Conservapedia? For reals?

    THANKYOU THANKYOU THANKYOU. From the heart of my bottom.

     
  • At 12:57 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    You just quoted Conservapedia?-

    Yes as it best describes "quote mining".

    It is a better source of information than wikipedia.

    It is a better source than talk origins.

     
  • At 1:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What are you doing when you follow instructions?-

    Whatever the instructions say.

    And what you are too stupid to understand is that exactly what you are doing is irrelevant to the point I am making.

    The point which I have supported by providing the standard and well accepted definitions of both design and mechanism.

    IOW all the relevant sources of information say that design is a mechanism by definition.

    And as I have stated many times now, it is as valid a mechanism as random variation and natural selection- ie an accumulation of genetic accidents.

     
  • At 1:34 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Yes as it best describes "quote mining".

    It is a better source of information than wikipedia.

    It is a better source than talk origins."

    Fantastic Joe! Tell us more! What makes it so good?

     
  • At 2:36 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Perhaps you could tell us exactly what design does, physically? Exactly? What does design do that is different from say, welding?

    If design does everything, it really isn't much use as a descriptor, is it?

    How can I cook this steak?

    DESIGN!!!

    How can I get to Memphis?

    DESIGN!!!

    How do I get rid of bugs on mint plants?

    DESIGN!!!

    Not really an effective description of anything, is it Joe?

     
  • At 2:40 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    I can play too!

    Joe asks in comment 4 of this thread, "And guess what?"

    Answer: DESIGN!

    Joe asks in comment 7, "Was it an accident?"

    Answer: DESIGN!

    Joe's math test asks, "What is 3 plus 8?"

    Answer: DESIGN!

    Wow, with this new educational tool, American test scores should go way up! Well, at least in New Hampshire.

     
  • At 3:52 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Perhaps you could tell us exactly what design does, physically?-

    That's not even a properly phrased question.

    IOW it is obvious tat you don't have a clue as to what I am talking about.

    As I have been telling you Erik, you are a clown.

    There's a reason for that.

    So again I will attempt an example in context:

    Organsims evolved by design.

    vs.

    Organisms evolved via an accumulation of genetic accidents.

    In each case the mechanism of evolution is after the word "by".

    "Design" is a general mechanism. Just as "accumulation of genetic accidents" or "descent with modification" are both general mechanisms.

    IOW if you accept the theory of evolution's mechanisms and reject design as a mechanism, then you are applying a double-standard.

     
  • At 3:54 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If design does everything, it really isn't much use as a descriptor, is it?-

    No one said nor implied that design does everything.

    That you always take things to absolute extremes further proves you are a pimple on the ass of progress.

     
  • At 3:57 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "How did humans get here?"

    We evolved

    "How did b;ipey become such an asshole?"

    It evolved

    "How did Richie become so stupid?"

    He evolved

    "How did the universe become the way it is?"

    It evolved.


    Yes it is clear that saying "it evolved" explains everything!!!!

     
  • At 4:02 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW I never said nor implied that once design is determined as a mechanism the investigation stops.

    Investigators will almost always want to know how they can duplicate the design.

    IOW they will try to figure out how they can make one- which may help them figure out how it was originally produced.

    But all that comes well AFTER the design inference.

     
  • At 4:19 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Yes, but have mecahnisms such as:

    1) point mutations

    2) deletion and insertion (“frame shift” / "indel") mutations

    3) inversion and translocation mutations

    Gene Expression in Prokaryotes

    4) changes in promoter or terminator sequences (increasing or decreasing binding)

    5) changes in repressor binding (in prokaryotes); increasing or decreasing binding to operator sites

    6) changes in repressor binding (in prokaryotes); increasing or decreasing binding to inducers

    7) changes in repressor binding (in prokaryotes); increasing or decreasing binding to corepressors

    Gene Expression in Eukaryotes

    8) changes in activation factor function in eukaryotes (increasing or decreasing binding to promoters)

    9) changes in intron length, location, and/or editing by changes in specificity of SNRPs

    10) changes in interference/antisense RNA regulation (increasing or decreasing binding to sense RNAs)

    Gene Interactions

    11) changes in substrates or products of biochemical pathways

    12) addition or removal of gene products (especially enzymes) from biochemical pathways

    13) splitting or combining of biochemical pathways

    14) addition or alteration of pleiotropic effects, especially in response to changes in other genes/traits

    Eukaryotic Chromosome Structure

    15) gene duplication within chromosomes

    16) gene duplication in multiple chromosomes

    17) inversions involving one or more genes in one chromosome

    18) translocations involving one or more genes between two or more chromosomes

    19) deletion/insertion of one or more genes via transposons

    20) fusion of two or more chromosomes or chromosome fragments

    21) fission of one chromosome into two or more fragments

    22) changes in chromosome number via nondisjunction (aneuploidy)

    23) changes in chromosome number via autopolyploidy (especially in plants)

    24) changes in chromosome number via allopolyploidy (especially in plants)

    Eukaryotic Chromosome Function

    25) changes in regulation of multiple genes in a chromosome as a result of the foregoing structural changes

    26) changes in gene expression as result of DNA methylation

    27) changes in gene expression as result of changes in DNA-histone binding

    Genetic Recombination

    28) the exchange of non-identical genetic material between two or more individuals (i.e. sex)

    29) lateral gene transfer via plasmids and episomes (especially in prokaryotes)

    30) crossing-over (reciprocal and non-reciprocal) between sister chromatids in meiosis

    31) crossing-over (non-reciprocal) between sister chromatids in mitosis

    32) Mendelian independent assortment during meiosis

    33) hybridization

    Genome Structure and Function

    34) genome reorganization and/or reintegration

    35) partial or complete genome duplication

    36) partial or complete genome fusion

    Development (among multicellular eukaryotes, especially animals)

    37) changes in tempo and timing of gene regulation, especially in eukaryotes

    38) changes in homeotic gene regulation in eukaryotes

    39) genetic imprinting, especially via hormone-mediated DNA methylation

    Symbiosis

    40) partial or complete endosymbiosis

    41) partial or complete incorporation of unrelated organisms as part of developmental pathways (especially larval forms)

    42) changes in presence or absence of mutualists, commensals, and/or parasites

    Behavior/Neurobiology

    43) changes in behavioral anatomy, histology, and/or physiology in response to changes in biotic community

    44) changes in behavioral anatomy, histology, and/or physiology in response to changes in abiotic environment

    45) learning (including effects of use and disuse)

    Physiological Ecology

    46) changes in anatomy, histology, and/or physiology in response to changes in biotic community

    47) changes in anatomy, histology, and/or physiology in response to changes in abiotic environment


    [hat tip to Allen MacNeil]

    You have ..


    DESIGN!

     
  • At 4:34 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yeah Rich,

    And exactly what have those mechanisms ever been shown to do?

    And exactly how was it determined that each of those was a genetic accident?

    Also once again you demonstrate your willfull ignorance.

    I told you about Dr Spentener's "non-random evolutionary hypothesis" and you ignored it.

    It was published 12 years ago,

    I also told MacNeill and he ignored it.

    IOW you both prove the theory of evolution relies on ignorance.

    Gene duplication- in order to get the new gene to get transcribed it needs a binding site in its regulatory region.

    A whole new binding site.

    Waiting for two mutations pretty much destroys that idea.

    As for what Dr Spetner says:

    Dr. Spetner discussing transposons:
    The motion of these genetic elements to produce the above mutations has been found to a complex process and we probably haven’t yet discovered all the complexity. But because no one knows why they occur, many geneticists have assumed they occur only by chance. I find it hard to believe that a process as precise and well controlled as the transposition of genetic elements happens only by chance. Some scientists tend to call a mechanism random before we learn what it really does. If the source of the variation for evolution were point mutations, we could say the variation is random. But if the source of the variation is the complex process of transposition, then there is no justification for saying that evolution is based on random events. -

    IOW as I have told you before- directed mutations- as in the mutations occur as a result of the programming- ie the information that you and your ilk can't account for.

    Just so you know not one of your posted mechanisms has been shown to do anything that would support universal common descent.

    As I told you before we don't even know what gene, genes or DNA sequence(s) our responsible for our eyes developement.

    And if we don't knmow that we don't know if they could have evolved.

    Not that I expect you to understand any of that.

     
  • At 5:56 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "non-random evolutionary hypothesis"


    Cool - tell us about the mechanisms.


    Let me guess.




    Design!

     
  • At 6:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Cool - tell us about the mechanisms.-

    Directed mutations- pretty much everything on Allen's list except for point mutations.

    Read the book "Not By Chance" and you won't be so ignorant about what you are arguing against.

    Or do you think it is good policy to argue against that which you don't know?

     
  • At 1:11 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Ah, yes. See, it evolved can be explained with the things on Rich's list among other mechanisms.

    So, "it evolved" can actually be explained.

    Would you care to explain "it was designed"?

    Or do you not find that necessary. I believe scientists actually find it necessary to explain "it evolved".

    If you want to be sciency and stuff, maybe you could at least attempt their level of rigor???

     
  • At 1:18 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Great - so the designer new every chemical and particle interaction beforehand and designed stuff accordingly?

    He was waiting for Lenski to experiment with E-Coli?

     
  • At 9:21 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    See, it evolved can be explained with the things on Rich's list among other mechanisms.-

    And yet those mechanisms have never been observed to do what universal common descent requires.

    So saying "it evolved" is meaningless because no one even know if it can evolve.

    As I told Richie there isn't any science that demonstrates the mechanisms that Allen MacNeill wrote down are genetic accidents.

    IOW evos claim them as "their" mechanisms just because of ignorance.

    And even at that they still don't know whether or not something like an eye/ vision system could evolve.

    I believe scientists actually find it necessary to explain "it evolved".-

    And yet they haven't been able to.

    If you want to be sciency and stuff, maybe you could at least attempt their level of rigor???-

    What rigor?

    Both CSI and IC are more rigorously defined than anything your position has to offer.

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

    Great - so the designer new every chemical and particle interaction beforehand and designed stuff accordingly?-

    That is a possibility.


    He was waiting for Lenski to experiment with E-Coli?-

    You mean the experiments which demonstrate the theory of evolution is nonsense?

    It's funny that after all those generations not one novel protein machnery "evolved".

    Not only that the "Waiting for Two Mutations" paper puts a big damper on the theory.

     
  • At 10:03 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Joe, a petri dish is not a planet and Lenski didn't use deep time, yet the evolutionary response was still amazing.

    So far we have

    'I can calculate CSI but I wont'
    'Design is a mechanism that does stuff by evolution'
    'That experiment that shows evolution disproves evolution'


    YOU ROCK.

     
  • At 10:21 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Amazing to who?

    Also "evolution" is not being debated.

    I have told you that many times and you still don't understand that basic and simple fact.

    'I can calculate CSI but I wont'-

    You don't calculate CSI, you measure the amount of specified information to determine if CSI is present or not.

    And I provided an example of a such a measurement.

    That you are too stupid to understand that is not my problem.

    'Design is a mechanism that does stuff by evolution'-

    Umm "evolution" is a result.

    And I have corrected you on that too many times now.

    IOW you are so stupid you don't even understand what "evolution" is.


    'That experiment that shows evolution disproves evolution'-

    "Evolution" isan't being debated asshole.

    IOW you appear to be veryu proud of your ignorance.

    Do you think your ignorance is some sort of refutation?

    Everything Lenski has demonstrated fits in perfectly well with the Creation model of biological evolution- ie baraminology.

    There isn't anything in Lenski's experiments that support universal common descent via an accumulation of genetic accidents.

    And if deep time is what you rely on then you aren't conducting science.

     
  • At 10:25 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I said:

    You mean the experiments which demonstrate the theory of evolution is nonsense?-

    To which Richie responds:

    'That experiment that shows evolution disproves evolution'-

    Thanks for once again proving you can't follow along without misrepresentating what I posted.

    At least now I understand why you are an evolutionitwit- you are just too stupid to understand that it is "theory" built and sustained by ignorance.

     
  • At 11:19 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    CSI and IC are more rigorously explained than what?

    I find that amazing since you can't seem to use or explain either. If this is a false statement, perhaps you would care to share the CSI of a softball? Compare that to the CSI of a boulder of similar size. Then tell me which was designed?

    Or maybe you wouldn't....

     
  • At 11:24 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    CSI and IC are more rigorously explained than what?-

    Than anything your position has to offer.

    I find that amazing since you can't seem to use or explain either.-

    And yet I have done exactly that.

    All one has to do is search this blog.

    Rememeber your ignorance is not a refutation.

    If this is a false statement, perhaps you would care to share the CSI of a softball?-

    As I said your ignorance is not a refutation.

    Your query doesn't even make sense.

    I have explained that many, many times and the fact you repeat it proves you are a willfully ignorant asshole.

     
  • At 11:27 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    What exactly doesn't make sense, Joe?

    Let's break it down and you let me know which step doesn't make sense.

    1. A softball has CSI. Yes or no?
    2. A boulder has CSI. Yes or no?
    3. Either the softball or the boulder has more CSI. Yes or no?
    4. We can determine design by looking at the CSI of an object. Yes or no.

    If you let me know which step(s) I am misunderstanding, perhaps that will allow us to continue more productively.

     
  • At 12:45 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Thanks again for this thread.

     
  • At 3:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You are welcome Rich.

    And thank you for proving you don't have a clue.

     
  • At 3:25 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What exactly doesn't make sense, Joe?-

    Most everything you post.

    It is a product of your ignorance.

    You don't know what you are talking about so you make shit up as you go.

    Let's break it down and you let me know which step doesn't make sense.

    1. A softball has CSI. Yes or no?
    -

    That is a huge difference from your original query.

    But anyway what "softball"?

    I would need specifics.

    Contrary to what you believe science is not conducted from the mouths of clowns.

    2. A boulder has CSI. Yes or no?-

    Exactly!! Either it does or it doesn't.

    I would need to see the boulder.

    Again science relies on observation and being able to thoroughly investigate the object.

    3. Either the softball or the boulder has more CSI. Yes or no?-

    More CSI?

    Either something has CSI or it doesn't.

    Again I have explained this too many times and the fact you still fuck it up proves that you are an ignorant asshole.

    4. We can determine design by looking at the CSI of an object. Yes or no.-

    The design inference is verified, ie all but proven, if CSI is present.

    And as I have been saying for years, counterflow is a better way of making an initial design inference.

     
  • At 3:26 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe, if you could give me simple yes/no answers to my four questions, I think we could have a much more productive conversation.

    I believe my confusion is contained in those four details.

     
  • At 3:26 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Sorry, Joe, you posted as I did.

     
  • At 3:31 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Wow. Joe, I apologize for apologizing earlier. Jesus Christ, you're a dishonest fuckwad.

    1. A regulation, men's fastpitch softball. You know, it's a game that millions of people play--perhaps you've seen it. If you really have never seen a softball, go to your local sporting goods store and look at one.

    2. A boulder. To see one, perhaps you could go out to your yard and look at one. You may have to look at your neighbor's yard, I don't know. Almost anyone with a rock garden will have a boulder.

    3. After you've seen these two spectacularly common objects, would it be fair to say that one of them will have more CSI than the other?

    4. So, as long as CSI is present (say CSI = 1), we have design? It does kind of beg the question, "1 what?". One bit of CSI = design?

     
  • At 3:34 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    I was thinking, maybe we should start at an even more elementary level--one we can both agree on--and go from there:

    1. Do you know what a regulation, men's fastpitch softball is?

    2. Do you know what a boulder is?

    These two questions should get us on equal footing to start.

     
  • At 3:54 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What's wrong with you guys?

    It appears you don't like your own tactics used against you.

    TFB.

    But anyways blipey I will not give you any wiggle room.

    You will always have to be very specific.

    And if you don't like that then go bother someone else.

    Not all softballs are the same.

    A men's fast-pitch softball is very different than a men's slow-pitch softball.

    Now if you go and find the manufacturer's specifications and method of manufacture, then you will have an idea of how much specified information it contains.

    As for boulders, if you are just talking about one without any apparent counterflow, unless someone could show otherwise I would say it didn't contain CSI.

    And as I have been telling you for years 500 bits of specified information = CSI.

    It is in "No Free Lunch". CJYMan was kind enough to post here explaining CSI to you.

    It doesn't matter.

    Science and technical issues are not for everyone.

    You are a clown and should stay within your obvious limitations.

     
  • At 4:10 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, if I describe a softball, it has CSI, but if I describe the core of the softball and say it has a cover, that description will render a different amount of CSI for the same softball?

    Or if I describe a fastpitch softball thusly:

    "Leather cover filled with 1,000 feet of wound string."

    That would mean the softball contains (53 characters X 5 bits) = 265 bits of information. So the softball contains zero CSI.

    Of course if I described the same softball thusly:

    "Leather cover filled with one thousand feet of wound string."

    Well, the softball would contain (60 characters X 5 bits) = 300 bits of information. So the softball would contain zero CSI.

    However, it appears there need to be some rules as to how to determine the information in the softball as we now have two different values for the same object.

    Maybe you would care to inform us of the rules used to determine information?

    And lastly, if I described the softball thusly:

    "A horsehide leather cover stuffed full of one thousand feet of strong, ultra tightly wound nylon string."

    Now we have the exact same ball containing (103 characters X 5 bits) = 515 bits of information. This ball contains CSI and is therefor designed, while the other two are not (even though they are the same object).

    Maybe you can tell us what the rules for determining information content are?

     
  • At 4:28 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So, if I describe a softball, it has CSI, but if I describe the core of the softball and say it has a cover, that description will render a different amount of CSI for the same softball?-

    Nope, not even close.

    Or if I describe a fastpitch softball thusly:

    "Leather cover filled with 1,000 feet of wound string."
    -

    That would be an incorrect description.

    Maybe you can tell us what the rules for determining information content are?-

    Been there, done that.

    Proving that you are an ignorant fuck isn't helping you Erik.

    As I said if you are any good at being a clown then stick with it.

    You suck at science...

     
  • At 4:44 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Um, if I remember right, Joe, you merely gave the list of ingredients in a cake and called that the information content.

    So, is it better to say a softball's information content is:

    String, Leather, Rubber.

    By this definition, a softball in no way contains CSI.

    Maybe you could describe a softball for us, so we know what a proper description looks like?

     
  • At 4:48 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Now if you go and find the manufacturer's specifications and method of manufacture, then you will have an idea of how much specified information it contains.-

    The point being is that only a total fucking asshole loser would respond to that request with:

    "Leather cover filled with 1,000 feet of wound string."-

    The sad part is that you don't care how much of an asshole you are.

    And you sure don't care to let people know how ignorant you are.

     
  • At 4:52 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Um, if I remember right, Joe, you merely gave the list of ingredients in a cake and called that the information content.-

    You have a very faulty memory.

    And that you think your faults are my problem is strange.

     
  • At 5:00 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Perhaps you could remind us of thee CSI of a cake then, Joe?

     
  • At 5:02 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    You sure don't care too much about educating people, Joe. I'd stop pretending that you do.

    I'm asking direct questions in order to help me understand CSI and IC. You refuse to answer.

    If you would give an acceptable description of a softball, then everyone would better understand your point of view. Can you not provide an acceptable description of a softball?

     
  • At 5:06 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Perhaps you could remind us of thee CSI of a cake then, Joe?-

    Just find the blog entry and read it.

     
  • At 5:55 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You sure don't care too much about educating people, Joe. I'd stop pretending that you do.-

    That is funny coming from a person who refuses to be eductaed.

    I'm asking direct questions in order to help me understand CSI and IC. You refuse to answer.-

    If you come to a BLOG for education then education is not what you are really looking for.

    You can find the answers to your questions about IC and CSI the same way I did- read the relevant literature.

    If you would give an acceptable description of a softball, then everyone would better understand your point of view. Can you not provide an acceptable description of a softball?-

    What part of the following don't you understand?:

    Now if you go and find the manufacturer's specifications and method of manufacture, then you will have an idea of how much specified information it contains.-

    Ya see we have been down this road before:

    CSI of a baseball:

    blipey the clueless clown has challenged me to calculate the CSI of a baseball.

    What can be done is to calculate the amount of information it takes to make one from scratch. And this calculation is nothing more than a counting of the bits that information contains.

    Counting appears to be above blipey's capabilities.

    So blipey I will count the bits for you if you provide the specifications and assembly instructions. I do not have the time to search for them.

    And that goes for anything else- for living organisms provide the genome and all known protein sequences of the organism in question.

    One final note- the point of CSI is to know whether or not it is present. Its presence is a signal of intentional design. Getting an exact number, although good for parlor games, may or may not be of any use scientifically.

    Added 4/5:

    How to make a baseball

    "Construction varies. Generally the core of the ball is cork, rubber, or a mixture of the two, and is sometimes layered. Around that are various linear materials including yarn and twine, sometimes wool is used. A leather cover is put on, in two pieces, and stitched together using 108 stitches of waxed red cotton thread. Rolled stitching is flatter and creates less air-resistance. This is the type of stitching used for major league balls and is ideal for the game and everyday play. Official Major League balls sold by Rawlings are made to the exact MLB specifications (5 ounces, 108 stitches) and are stamped with the signature of Commissioner Allan "Bud" Selig on each ball."

    The more specifications required the more information required-

    First you would need a BOM (bill of materials)

    1- a specified core
    2- specified material that will be wrapped around the core
    3- specified leather cover
    4- specified thread

    That's just the BOM. Next you would need assembly instructions-

    How tightly to wrap the core
    Direction of wrapping
    How much material to use
    The cover would be cut in a specified manner
    It would then be sewn in a specified manner.

    After the ball is made it would then be tested to see if it meets the specifications- weight, diameter/ circumference and rebound.

    All those bits of information, taken together, are what would determine if CSI was present or not. It should be obvious that specified information is present and that CSI just puts a lower limit on the number of bits required.


    That is how one measures the (minimum) amount of information - count the number of bits.

     
  • At 6:23 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Right, I read the CSI of a cake. It was the recipe of a cake. Next.

     
  • At 6:26 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, right. We still know that you can't calculate the CSI of a baseball, Joe. Nor can you tell us what the information content of a baseball is. Nor can you relate the two things together.

    But anywho...would you care to tell me how the CSI of a baseball and a softball differ? Or are they the same? If you had to guess, which would have more information content?

    What? No answers. One might think that you have no idea what you're talking about.

    Thanks for addressing the previous paragraph and not any of the useful stuff.

     
  • At 6:41 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Still no numbers, Joe?


    How sad.

     
  • At 9:57 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    As for the CSI of a softball, I count 193 bits. What do you get, Joe?

     
  • At 9:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hawks:
    As for the CSI of a softball, I count 193 bits. What do you get, Joe?-

    How did you arrive at 193 bits?

     
  • At 9:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Right, I read the CSI of a cake. It was the recipe of a cake. Next.-

    Then you prove that once again you cannot understand what you read.

    Next.

     
  • At 9:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Still no numbers, Joe?-

    Still willfully ignorant Richie- how amusing.

     
  • At 9:33 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    We still know that you can't calculate the CSI of a baseball, Joe.-

    It's a measurement not a calculation.

    And it is a measurement of specified information.

    IOW you seem to be proud oif the fact that you are ignorant and you think your ignorance is some sort of refutation.

    One might think that you have no idea what you're talking about.-

    You may think whatever you want. However the facts demonstrate that you are ignorant even though I have explained this to you several times.

    IOW you are willfully ignorant.

     
  • At 10:53 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Okay, have it your way:

    We know you can't MEASURE the CSI of a softball, baseball, or cake.

    Do you agree with 193 bits of information for a softball?

     
  • At 10:55 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    What would your number be, Joe? You shouldn't have to ask others for help, you should be bright enough (I can't believe I actually wrote that) to come up with a number yourself. I've provided several numbers for the information content of a softball and Hawks has been nice enough to supply his number. Maybe you could give us the right answer?

     
  • At 10:25 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    We know you can't MEASURE the CSI of a softball, baseball, or cake.=

    YOU can't.

    I refuse to do your work for you.

    Now I have explained that several times and the fact that you refuse to understand it juts further demonstrates your ignorant agenda.

    Do you agree with 193 bits of information for a softball?-

    I would have to see how that number was obtained.

    IOW I would have to verify that Hawks followed my instructions.

    I seriously doubt it because not one of you appears capable of doing that.

     
  • At 10:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I've provided several numbers for the information content of a softball and Hawks has been nice enough to supply his number. Maybe you could give us the right answer?-

    Maybe you can honor my requests as opposed to being an asshole.

     
  • At 10:31 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey the clueless clown has challenged me to calculate the CSI of a baseball.

    What can be done is to calculate the amount of information it takes to make one from scratch. And this calculation is nothing more than a counting of the bits that information contains.

    Counting appears to be above blipey's capabilities.

    So blipey I will count the bits for you if you provide the specifications and assembly instructions. I do not have the time to search for them.

     
  • At 1:46 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    I counted the bits of information contained in the description of the softball. If you think this is the wrong approach, you'll have to give a lesson on what is the proper approach. That you have failed o do this as yet casts much doubt on your mental faculties.

    If it is so easy, why can't you show the world what a dumbass I am and list the information content along with the number of bits contained in a softball?

    You would think that showing a clown up would be easy. Why can't you do it?

     
  • At 1:47 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Come on, Joe. How do you make a softball? I've already said that it is a leather hide surrounding a wound string. What more could you ask for?

     
  • At 9:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I counted the bits of information contained in the description of the softball. If you think this is the wrong approach, you'll have to give a lesson on what is the proper approach. That you have failed o do this as yet casts much doubt on your mental faculties.-

    You didn't follow my instructions.

    IOW you are a dickheaded piece of shit.

    If it is so easy, why can't you show the world what a dumbass I am and list the information content along with the number of bits contained in a softball?-

    You do a good enough job proving to tne world that you are a dumbass.

    You don't need my help.

    You would think that showing a clown up would be easy. Why can't you do it?-

    This thread is proof of how easy it is to show up a clown.

    This thread proves that clowns should stick to being clowns because you don't understand science nor technical issues.

    And you are too small to dig ditches.

     
  • At 9:24 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    How do you make a softball?-

    I don't. And if you really wanted to know you wouldn't be asking me.

    I've already said that it is a leather hide surrounding a wound string. What more could you ask for?-

    If you think that is all it takes to make a regulation men's fast-pitch softball then you are even more stupid than I thought.

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

    It looks like this thread is finished.

     

<< Home