Gary Hurd -Dr GH- Accomplished Tard Bloviating Chicanery
-
And so starts the saga-
We begin our journey with an accomplished blowhard- Dr GH- Gary Hurd- saying and trying to defend, by repeating his false claim no less, that according to the Explanatory Filter, design is the default after chance and necessity have been eliminated.
However even a fifth grader can see by looking at the EF's flowchart that the final descision node requires that a specification also be met before the design inference is warranted.
And this asswipe flaunts his PhD?
That is just the start of his spewage.
Next he tells me that mutations are not part of ID. WTF?
That is what happens when one runs around with his head up his ass. I guess it makes it easier for him to lick his prostrate so that he can blow his load without stroking- saves on the ole wear-n-tear.
But anyway Dr GH's tard is exactly what passes for scholarship over on AtBC.
If you want to watch a group circle-jerk, that is a good place to start.
And so starts the saga-
We begin our journey with an accomplished blowhard- Dr GH- Gary Hurd- saying and trying to defend, by repeating his false claim no less, that according to the Explanatory Filter, design is the default after chance and necessity have been eliminated.
However even a fifth grader can see by looking at the EF's flowchart that the final descision node requires that a specification also be met before the design inference is warranted.
And this asswipe flaunts his PhD?
That is just the start of his spewage.
Next he tells me that mutations are not part of ID. WTF?
That is what happens when one runs around with his head up his ass. I guess it makes it easier for him to lick his prostrate so that he can blow his load without stroking- saves on the ole wear-n-tear.
But anyway Dr GH's tard is exactly what passes for scholarship over on AtBC.
If you want to watch a group circle-jerk, that is a good place to start.
posted by Joe G @ 3:35 PM
16 Comments:
At 4:46 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Joe - you might want to link at AtBC. Or, as we're possibly the only folks who read your blog, just come over and have a good cry there instead.
I'll put the kettle on.
At 4:51 PM,
Joe G said…
Good cry?
Crying by laughing my ass off, perhaps.
At 4:53 PM,
Joe G said…
Oh and I added the link- thanks for the head's up...
At 6:28 PM,
Ghostrider said…
Tell us Joe, what biological structure has the EF ever successfully identified as designed? Where is the specification for this structure?
It's been over 10 years since Dembski tried to use it on the proteins of the flagellum, and the basic blunders in both math and biology he produced made him a laughingstock of the scientific community. So much so in fact that it was the last time he attempted to use the EF.
Do you know anyone who has attempted to do the calculations on a biological structure since Dembski's debacle?
At 7:22 PM,
Joe G said…
Tell us Thorton, what biological structure has been shown to evolve via blind, undirected processes?
Tell us Thorton what is a testable biological hypothesis pertaining to blind, undirected processes?
Tell us Thorton how can one test the premise that the bacterial flagellum or any protein machinery "evolved" via blind, undirected processes?
Hell it's only been 150 years since Darwin's book was published and you still have nothing to show that would support your bullshit position.
At 7:43 PM,
Joe G said…
Hey Thorton,
Do you have a reference for those alleged basic blunders Dembski made?
At 8:59 PM,
blipey said…
So, no, you have no idea if anyone has done the EF work?
Perhaps your own genius could enlighten us to its use?
At 9:45 PM,
Joe G said…
So, no, you have no idea if anyone has done the EF work?
What process did the evotards use to determine the design observed is illusory?
What do you have besides the refusal to allow the design inference?
How do you think scientists determine accident, from nature, from intention?
How do you think scientists can tell if something other than nature, operating freely, has been in a specified area?
Perhaps your own genius could enlighten us to its use?
Imbeciles like you use it to mock- most likely it also helps you blow your load just thinking about it.
But anyway as I have already stated it is the process anyone trying to refute the design inference would use.
Right now all tards-like clownie- have is the refusal to allow the design inference no matter what.
Have at it Erik.
Use it on ATP synthase.
Show your work.
Good luck...
At 8:25 PM,
blipey said…
Right. No idea how to use the EF. Please continue. Why should we take the EF seriously?
At 9:41 PM,
Joe G said…
Yes, I understand that you don't have any idea how to use anything but your shit for brains.
But what is that supposed to mean to people with an IQ over 50?
Why should anyone take the EF seriously?
Because it is the best process available.
Do you think forensic scientists flip a coin?
I would question anyone who says the have confidently detected design who didn't use either that process or some reasonable facsimle thereof.
Ya see if chance and/or necessity can account for something then the only way to "detect" design is by actually observing it take place.
IOW Erik once agin you appear to be proud to be an ignorant asshole.
And the reason asswipes like you don't like the EF is because when living organisms are plugged into it we always arrive at the design inference.
But following the evidence isn't your forte, is it?
At 11:18 PM,
blipey said…
JoeG: The EF is the best process available.
Yet JoeG is unable to give an example of its use on any and every occasion in which he is asked about the EF's use.
JoeG: "And the reason asswipes like you don't like the EF is because when living organisms are plugged into it we always arrive at the design inference."
Why don't you plug something into it and show us? You know, an example... Or does it not really work that way?
At 8:38 AM,
Joe G said…
Erik,
How do you think people detect design?
Answer that question or admit that you are too stupid to have a discussion with.
At 5:49 PM,
blipey said…
Joe, more people might agree with you if you bothered to show your work.
At 6:23 PM,
Joe G said…
So Erik the asshole doesn't know how scientists and investigators detect design.
As far as he knows they just flip a coin.
Ignorance is bliss and Erik is one blissful puppy...
At 11:16 PM,
Ghostrider said…
How do you think people detect design?
Answer that question or admit that you are too stupid to have a discussion with.
Humans do it by pattern matching an unknown object with one that is previously known to be designed, and the designer and mechanism of design / fabrication are previously known also.
How do you pattern match or identify a 'specification' when the pattern or 'specification' has never been seen before?
Answer that question or admit that you are too stupid to have a discussion with.
At 6:39 AM,
Joe G said…
Humans do it by pattern matching an unknown object with one that is previously known to be designed, and the designer and mechanism of design / fabrication are previously known also.
Do you have a valid reference to support that claim?
Just your "say so" is meaningless.
Post a Comment
<< Home