blipey the clown (Erik Pratt)- Proud to be ignorant
-
Another evotard steps up and proudly exposes its ignorance.
blipey the clawn said:
Got that?!
Erik needs someone to explain to him why a definition equals information!
IOW Erik is so ignorant he doesn't even know what "information" is!
And he is proud of that.
Well Erik if we didn't have standard and accepted definitions of words we wouldn't be able to convey any information at all.
Evotards are very proud of their tardedness.
Another evotard steps up and proudly exposes its ignorance.
blipey the clawn said:
You never did explain why a definition equals information.
Got that?!
Erik needs someone to explain to him why a definition equals information!
IOW Erik is so ignorant he doesn't even know what "information" is!
And he is proud of that.
Well Erik if we didn't have standard and accepted definitions of words we wouldn't be able to convey any information at all.
Evotards are very proud of their tardedness.
posted by Joe G @ 7:52 AM
153 Comments:
At 2:28 AM,
blipey said…
Uh...that's Information, with a capital I, Joe.
Really, you have to be a little better than that. Most people who a tiny grasp of third grade reading can tell that you mean to say that a dictionary definition of a word can be used to describe a discrete and objective value of Information for an object.
That same person can also tell that you've never explained how this can be done.
Stop conflating Information with information. It gets old.
At 6:56 AM,
Joe G said…
Stop conflating Information with information.
Spoken like a retard...
A definition of a word is information Erik.
It is information in the sense that ID talks about information.
OTOH Shannon "information" is not "information" in the ordinary sense:
"The word information in this theory is used in a special mathematical sense that must not be confused with its ordinary usuage. Information must not be confused with meaning" Warren Weaver- colloborated with Shannon.
At 1:13 PM,
blipey said…
Thanks, Joe. So why do constantly speak of information as a specific quantity of something and then tell us a dictionary definition can provide this?
Either you're talking about information or Information--you can't be talking about both.
For example, which of these provides the correct value of I for a baseball:
1. a thin, flat sheet or piece of metal or other material, esp. of uniform thickness
OR
2. A smooth, flat, relatively thin, rigid body of uniform thickness
Which one is it, Joe?
At 3:11 PM,
Joe G said…
So why do constantly speak of information as a specific quantity of something and then tell us a dictionary definition can provide this?
You are an idiot.
The definition I provided is an example of specified information.
I then measured the information contained in that definition.
It was an EXAMPLE of how to measure SI to see if CSI is present.
Either you're talking about information or Information--you can't be talking about both.
What is the difference- in your twisted mind- besides the size of the first letter?
IOW are you an asshole or an Asshole?
Are you demented or Demented?
Does changing that first letter to a capital change the definition of the word?
Well I can think of a word that begins with "p" that if the "p" was a "P" the pronounciation and meaning change.
Do you know what that word is?
CSI = csi- period, end of story.
But anyway a definition equals information because that is what a definition is.
And you are a freak of nature, because, well that is what you is- bitch...
(prediction-blipey runs back to his protectorate and blows his load- Joe said "you is"!)
At 3:51 PM,
Joe G said…
Erik,
Why is it that you have never- not once- demonstrated an understanding of the topic?
Do really really think that being a smug asshole refutes my arguments?
Do you really think your ignorance refutes my arguments?
At 1:28 PM,
Joe G said…
For example, which of these provides the correct value of I for a baseball:
1. a thin, flat sheet or piece of metal or other material, esp. of uniform thickness
Nope- no value of I for a baseball in that tripe.
OR
2. A smooth, flat, relatively thin, rigid body of uniform thickness
Nope- no value of I for a baseball in that tripe.
Which one is it, Joe?
The value of I for blipey's baseball-sized head is too low to be measured.
Although it appears that blipey is an imbecile by design- he is a clown and that is what clowns do- play the fool- it very well could be that he doesn't have a choice.
At 7:45 PM,
blipey said…
my bad, the above should have read:
Which of these provides the correct value of I for a plate:
1. a thin, flat sheet or piece of metal or other material, esp. of uniform thickness
OR
2. A smooth, flat, relatively thin, rigid body of uniform thickness
Which one is it, Joe?
At 7:55 PM,
Joe G said…
1- What's your point?
2- Do you have a reference for your definitions?
3- Do you have a context? plate has many definitions- and yes all the definitions are information and all the definitions are Information.
4- Do you really think that just because you can be an ignorant asshole that you actually refute an ID claim?
5- You never did tell me the difference between information and Information. I take that to mean you don't have any clue what you are talking about.
At 8:04 PM,
Joe G said…
my bad, the above should have read:
Everything you post is bad.
You seem incapable of thought.
That you are fighting the fact that a dictionary definition is specified information proves that you are beyond reason- as if anyone needed more evidence.
At 8:53 PM,
blipey said…
It doesn't matter, Joe. Which gives the correct value of I for a plate? Those are both dictionary definitions for the word plate. They obvious are referencing the same object. Yet, your method of determining the I of a plate will come up with different values for each example. So which is the correct one?
At 9:35 PM,
Joe G said…
Let's dispense with the tard Erik.
I know you work very hard at your tard but please.
The definition I provided is an example of specified information.
I then measured the information contained in that definition.
It was an EXAMPLE of how to measure SI to see if CSI is present.
Yes or no- do you understand that?
At 12:27 AM,
blipey said…
I understand that you counted the bits in a definition and claimed that this was the same as the information content of the thing that was defined.
Now, this is a very simple question:
Which of the following provides the correct value of I for a plate:
1. a thin, flat sheet or piece of metal or other material, esp. of uniform thickness
OR
2. A smooth, flat, relatively thin, rigid body of uniform thickness
Which one, Joe? One or two? It's a simple question.
At 6:54 AM,
Joe G said…
I understand that you counted the bits in a definition and claimed that this was the same as the information content of the thing that was defined.
I counted the bits of a definition because a definition is specified information.
Do you understand that?
The definition I provided is an example of specified information.
I then measured the information contained in that definition.
It was an EXAMPLE of how to measure SI to see if CSI is present.
Yes or no- do you understand that?
The point being is if you are too stupid to undersatnd that then you are too stupid to have a discussion about it.
At 6:56 AM,
Joe G said…
I understand that you counted the bits in a definition and claimed that this was the same as the information content of the thing that was defined.
I never claimed the definition of an aardvark wqas the same as the information it takes to make an aardvark/ the same as the information an aardvark contains.
If that is what your twisted little mind thinks I did then you are too stupid to have a discussion with.
At 1:42 PM,
blipey said…
What, then, do dictionary definitions have to do with the what we are discussing? You are the one who brought them up. Tell me, what is the information content of a plate?
At 3:11 PM,
Joe G said…
What, then, do dictionary definitions have to do with the what we are discussing? You are the one who brought them up.
As I said:
The definition I provided is an example of specified information.
I then measured the information contained in that definition.
It was an EXAMPLE of how to measure SI to see if CSI is present.
At 5:34 PM,
blipey said…
Well, yes. But the discussion was clearly about what the information content of the actual objects was (you know, the actual aardvark, the actual baseball, the actual cake...), so for you to sidetrack the issue and start talking about dictionary definitions when you apparently didn't mean to equate dictionary definitions and the actual objects is bizarre.
So, let's start over.
The subject is the information content of actual objects. What is the information content of a plate? Or you could try the baseball again, whatever.
At 6:34 PM,
Joe G said…
So you blame me because you are too ignorant to follow along?
There wasn't any sidetrack. Unless you think an EXAMPLE of how to measure specified information- the SUBJECT of the blog for fuck's sake- is a sidetrack.
I could see how your twisted little mind would think such a thing.
The subject is the information content of actual objects.
Measuring Information/ specified complexity
What part of that don't you understand?
What is the information content of a plate?
All the information that went into making it- so it would all depend on the specific plate.
Or you could try the baseball again, whatever.
Apparently you are too stupid to understand what I have already told you about baseballs.
CSI of a baseball
There it is for all to see- are you proud to keep demonstrating your ignorance?
At 9:59 PM,
blipey said…
What is the information content of a baseball, Joe. The CSI of a baseball--by your current standards--makes no sense. Either a baseball has CSI or it doesn't. What we're interested in is:
What is the information content of a baseball?
So, what is it? Got a number?
At 12:21 AM,
Ghostrider said…
Apparently you are too stupid to understand what I have already told you about baseballs.
CSI of a baseball
There it is for all to see- are you proud to keep demonstrating your ignorance?
So what is the actual value in bits of the baseball CSI Joe?
Looks like you're incapable of actually calculating it.
You bluster and bluster more, but you can't do the actual math yourself. It's just more BS and 'it looks designed to me!!!' evasion.
At 6:56 AM,
Joe G said…
What is the information content of a baseball, Joe.
As I told you- all the information it takes to make one.
The CSI of a baseball--by your current standards--makes no sense.
Please explain why it doesn't make any sense.
But before you do- Do you even understand my curent standard? HINT- I just said it.
Either a baseball has CSI or it doesn't.
That is true.
What we're interested in is:
Obviously all YOU are interested in is being a fucking loser.
And you are doing a damn good job of being a loser.
Congratulations.
What is the information content of a baseball?
All the information it takes to make one.
What part of that don't you understand?
At 7:00 AM,
Joe G said…
Thorton,
Your bluster is duly noted.
Do you think a baseball can arise without agency involvement?
Do you have any doubts that a baseball is designed?
Are you too stupid to follow instructions?
Obviously you are too dishonest to actually support your position.
And obviously you are too stupid to think for yourself.
So why do you think you dishonesty and stupidity actually mean something?
At 7:02 AM,
Joe G said…
This is very, very good.
The subject of this thread is blipey's ignorance and he has confirmed that with every one of its posts.
Thank you Erik for proving that you are an ignorant little faggot.
And Thorton- thank you for continuing to prove that you have shit for brains.
At 10:53 PM,
blipey said…
Joe, the information content of a baseball. Tell us what it is. Show us that it is more than 500 bits.
At 9:21 AM,
Ghostrider said…
Speaking of shit for brains
You're the guy who keeps telling us it's possible to calculate an actual values in bits for the CSI of a baseball. Yet every time we ask you to do so you fume and bluster and fail miserably.
Why should anyone believe a word you type, when you can't demonstrate a single thing you claim?
At 10:54 AM,
Joe G said…
OK assholes-
Please be specific and tell me what part of the following don't you understand:
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.
An EXAMPLE of what blipey needs to provide:
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 amount of information - count the number of bits.
To gather all the data required is a lot of work. As I told Erik Pratt if he did that work I would count the bits. If Erik wants me to do all of the work then he has to pay me. And doing work for assholes is expensive.
So fuck-heads- what part of all that don't you understand?
Please be specific or admit that you both are ball-less wonders.
At 2:22 PM,
Ghostrider said…
So fuck-heads- what part of all that don't you understand?
Please be specific or admit that you both are ball-less wonders.
Specifically, the fact that you still can't come up with an actual number in bits for the CSI. Ignoring of course your cowardly attempt to force others to define the parameters of your claims for you.
The CSI you claim is still a totally subjective number based on what you subjectively decide to include as 'information'.
That's one on the many reasons such a metric is worthless, and IDiots earn the laughter you receive.
At 5:52 PM,
Joe G said…
IOW Thorton you are too stupid to understand my instructions.
And you think it is my fault.
You think it is my job to satisfy your ignorance and I find that hilarious.
Again if you want me to do ALL the work then you have to pay me.
If you are too much of a coward to pay me and too much of a coward to do the work for yourself, how does that refute the fact that a baseball contains CSI?
At 5:59 PM,
blipey said…
NO< Joe. We are not stupid. Your criteria are 100% subjective. It is the reason we ask you which provides the correct information content of a plate:
1. a thin, flat sheet or piece of metal or other material, esp. of uniform thickness
OR
2. A smooth, flat, relatively thin, rigid body of uniform thickness?
There have o be criteria for what is included. You have provided no way of determining what is necessary and what is not necessary.
So, until you actually calculate the information content of a baseball for us, your argument is worthless.
If you really look at history, Joe, the ideas that stick are the ones that people stuck their neck out for. Is there a reason you won't stick your neck out for CSI?
At 6:19 PM,
Joe G said…
Yes Erik you are stupid seeing that you refuse to follow simple instructions.
That is just plain ole stupidity.
Your criteria are 100% subjective.
Because you faggots say so?
Give me a break.
You haven't even demonstrtated an understanding of what I have said asshole.
I provided a valid reference to support my claim that the designer puts the information into the object he/ she is designing.
And all you can do is choke on it.
The reason you asked about a plate is because you are a clueless dolt.
All you did was prove you don't understand what I am saying.
So, until you actually calculate the information content of a baseball for us, your argument is worthless.
Until you pay me to do so or do the work I requested of you your hissy fits are worthless.
And as I said the ONLY reason you would need me to do so is because you think a baseball can arise without agency involvement.
IOW you are stupid.
So seeing you can't follow simple instructions it would be a waste of time to pursue this any further.
Is there any reason you refuse to follow my instructions?
At 6:48 PM,
blipey said…
So, you're not confident enough in CSI to calculate some for us?
That says it all.
At 6:52 PM,
blipey said…
I do not think that a baseball can spontaneously generate, Joe. I'm just saying that you've not given us a non-subjective method for determining that is the case.
Why don't you calculate some information content for us, compare it to something, determine if CSI is present, and SHOW us that a baseball is designed?
You've never gone through the process for us. Is there reason for that? You'd think that someone with a credible new idea that changes the course of science would leap at every chance to PROVE that they're right.
Is there a reason that you can't show us that you're correct?
At 6:56 PM,
Ghostrider said…
Hey Joe,
Suppose I am out hiking and find a really neat rounded granite river rock the size and shape of baseball. How do I calculate the CSI in it, or tell if it has any CSI at all?
I like it so much I hire a master stonemason to make me an identical copy. This requires I draw up a detailed BOM for the material composition, size, shape, etc. plus detailed specifications for the carving instructions. The copy obviously has lots of 'CSI' since it came from a detailed plan, right?
When the copy is done it is absolutely indistinguishable from the original. Then, clumsy me drops the two and gets them mixed up. How can I measure the CSI to tell the naturally occurring original from the highly specified copy?
Please answer so we won't think you are a ball-less wonder fuck head.
At 7:31 PM,
blipey said…
How to juggle:
Take a oblong plastic structure and loft it with one hand. Another hand will loft an object. Two objects will make intersecting paths and a third will intersect these at an acute angle. Catch objects with a hand.
Now you can juggle, Joe! I expect a world class performance any day now.
Do you find any fault with these instructions?
At 8:29 PM,
Joe G said…
So, you're not confident enough in CSI to calculate some for us?
I showed you how to measure it.
I provided an EXAMPLE.
You wanted more because you are a low-life loser.
Knowing that I asked you to do some of the work.
You have refused to do that.
You have not demonstrated any understanding of the topic.
As I have said there is a reason that you are a clown.
At 8:34 PM,
Joe G said…
I do not think that a baseball can spontaneously generate, Joe. I'm just saying that you've not given us a non-subjective method for determining that is the case.
So you say yet you haven't demonstrated that you understand anything I have said.
Until you demonstrate an understanding your critique is meaningless.
Why don't you calculate some information content for us, compare it to something, determine if CSI is present, and SHOW us that a baseball is designed?
Hey asshole I am waiting on you.
What is the hold-up?
You've never gone through the process for us. Is there reason for that?
All evidence to the contrary of course.
As I said you have yet to demonstrate an understanding of what I post.
I validated my claim with a reference.
I cannot help the willfully ignorant.
You'd think that someone with a credible new idea that changes the course of science would leap at every chance to PROVE that they're right.
As I said I cannot help the willfully ignorant.
And your ignorance is not a refutation.
I am still waiting on you clownie.
You either have to pay me or get the information requested.
Nothing happens until after one of those occurs.
At 8:40 PM,
Joe G said…
Hey Thorton.
Go out on that hike and stay there.
Why do you assholes think you can refute an idea with ignorance and insolence?
Why is it that every time I ask you dick-breaths what it is that you don't understand you never say anything but blather on in ignorance?
Why do you think that being a total fucking coward helps your position?
At 8:50 PM,
Ghostrider said…
Why do you think that being a total fucking coward helps your position?
Seems to me you're the total fucking coward who can't measure the CSI to tell the difference between a naturally occurring object like the river rock and a carefully designed copy of the same.
You told us you could detect design. Looks like that was bullshit too, just like the rest of your claims.
For a guy who claims to know all about CSI, you sure are as ignorant on the topic as a sack of doorknobs.
At 9:34 AM,
Joe G said…
Seems to me you're the total fucking coward who can't measure the CSI to tell the difference between a naturally occurring object like the river rock and a carefully designed copy of the same.
Let me see and handle both objects.
Then we will see if you complaint has any merit or we will know that you are the coward.
You told us you could detect design.
Yes I can and have.
It isn't my fault that you are too stupid to understand what I post.
Why do you think your ignorance and stupidity are some sort of refutation?
At 9:35 AM,
Joe G said…
And why is it that 13 year olds can understand what I posted but evotards cannot?
At 11:12 AM,
Ghostrider said…
Let me see and handle both objects.
What a dickless excuse. You don't need to see and handle them to tell us the method of how you would measure the CSI in each.
Well? Do you have a method for detecting the CSI difference in a naturally occurring object and a designed replica of the same or not? Because if you don't have a method then you admit your "I can tell design by the CSI" is useless and wrong.
At 7:01 AM,
Joe G said…
You don't need to see and handle them to tell us the method of how you would measure the CSI in each.
I need to see them to make sure that you are not full of shit.
If you are just making shit up then you are the dickless wonder.
Because if you don't have a method then you admit your "I can tell design by the CSI" is useless and wrong.
Ummm that is not my claim asshole.
As a matter of fact thta has NOTHING to do with anything I have been saying.
All I said was that a designed object has all the information the designer put into it- and I supported that claim with a valid reference.
If I just had an object I would not use CSI to determine design.
The reason is to figure out the information content you have already done all the work required to determine design.
IOW Thorton it is obvious that you don't have any investigative experience at all and you think your ignorance is meaningful discourse.
At 9:10 AM,
Ghostrider said…
LOL!
You say this
If I just had an object I would not use CSI to determine design.
..and just a few days before you said this
Therefor all we need to do is determine if CSI is present or not as the presence of CSI is evidence for design.
What a confused IDiot. You don't have even a sniff of a clue what you're arguing.
At 9:15 AM,
Joe G said…
Wow, you really are a twisted freak.
Thank you for admitting that you are incapable of following along and are forced to quote-mine.
Yes the presence of CSI indicates design.
So does the presence of counterflow.
If I just had an object I would not use CSI to determine design.
The reason is to figure out the information content you have already done all the work required to determine design.
IOW Thorton it is obvious that you don't have any investigative experience at all and you think your ignorance is meaningful discourse.
So why does Thorton continue to think his ignorance is relevant?
At 9:17 AM,
Joe G said…
I said the following:
Therefor all we need to do is determine if CSI is present or not as the presence of CSI is evidence for design.
to explain why we do not need to get an exact number.
IOW your out-of-context quote-mining just further exposes your stupidity.
At 10:14 AM,
Ghostrider said…
If I just had an object I would not use CSI to determine design.
LOL! There goes confused Joe again!
Let's say the object in question is a living organism
Tell me how you would determine purposeful, conscious design without referring to CSI.
Remember of course you already said you establish design by seeing if the genome had at least 500 bits of 'CSI'
To do that all you have to do is count the bits- ie each nucleotide is two bits- so how then you figure out how many nucleotides are required- for example to have a living organism.
Then if it is 500 bits or more you have CSI.
Next to refute the premise that CSI = design all you have to do is demonstrate that blind, undirected processes can account for it.
Keep talking Joe. I'm sure you can get your other foot into your mouth too.
At 10:28 AM,
Joe G said…
If I just had an object I would not use CSI to determine design.
There goes confused Joe again!
The confusion is all yours.
Time and again I have asked you if you understood what I have posted.
Time and again you have demonstrated that you do not.
Let's say the object in question is a living organism
Then we can directly count the bits- we don't have to figure out anything beyond specification.
And once we have that we count the bits- 2 bits per nucleotide.
Or we could use Dr Behe's criteria alone.
Tell me how you would determine purposeful, conscious design without referring to CSI.
The same way people have been doing it for thousands of years- counterflow.
Do you think CSI was used to determine Stonehenge was an artifact?
I don't think forensic scientists use complex specified information to determine a murder took place.
It is all about accountability- as in what can account for the thing observed.
Reducibility- what is required to bring it about.
Again I have been over and over this.
So perhaps you should pull your head out of your ass and try to come up with a valid complaint.
Or better yet produce positive evidence for your position.
But you can't so you have to attack ID with your ignorance...
At 10:30 AM,
Joe G said…
Keep talkin' Thorton.
The more you do the further your ignorance is exposed.
So thank you for proving my point.
At 12:21 PM,
Ghostrider said…
Tell me how you would determine purposeful, conscious design without referring to CSI.
The same way people have been doing it for thousands of years- counterflow.
Joe, pay attention.
The question was how you would determine purposeful, conscious design in living organisms without referring to CSI.
So explain how you determine design in living organisms using "counterflow". Maybe you could also define what you mean by the term since it seems to be another pulled out of your ass vague buzzword used only for evasion.
At 1:11 PM,
Joe G said…
The question was how you would determine purposeful, conscious design in living organisms without referring to CSI.
Why do I have to?
Why isn't Dr Behe's crireria good enough?
BTW "counterflow" comes from Del Ratzsch in "Nature, Design and Science".
Perhaps you should try to understand your opponent's position before jumping in and trying to argue against it.
But thank you for continuing to prove my point- you really do think your ignorance means something.
At 2:41 PM,
Ghostrider said…
Why do I have to?
You don't have to Joe. Only if you want to stop looking like a clueless evading boob. Your call.
Why isn't Dr Behe's crireria good enough?
Because it's completely subjective, which makes it not repeatable and not independently verifiable. That means it's worthless as scientific evidence.
BTW "counterflow" comes from Del Ratzsch in "Nature, Design and Science".
And here's the definition
Counterflow: Events or phenomena that result contrary to what, in the relevant sense, would (or might) have resulted or occurred had nature operated freely.
You claim to be able to demonstrate design in living organisms by showing 'counterflow', but counterflow means 'looks like it didn't occur naturally'. You couldn't get a more circular argument if you tried.
Tell me Joe, how do you objectively measure 'counterflow'? Your latest brain fart is just one more idiotic way of saying "Gee, it looks designed to me'.
And you wonder why no one takes ID seriously.
At 4:44 PM,
Joe G said…
Thorton,
CSI applies to living organisms.
As I said you don't have any idea, do you?
You don't understand anything I have been saying. Not a word.
Great.
Why isn't Dr Behe's crireria good enough?
Because it's completely subjective, which makes it not repeatable and not independently verifiable.
Behe's criteria is completely testable and repeatable.
You haven't even demonstrated that you understand it.
But anyways what does your position have so that we can compare.
Tell me the criteria used to determine that living organisms are the result of blind, undirected processes?
And what the hell is wrong with reducibility?
Do you not understand how that works?
As for counterflow- you really need to read the book.
I asked you once how do you think we detect design and you failed to reference your claim.
I posted a way to going about doing so and you ignore it.
The following is what the evidence says asshole:
1- Only life begets life.
2- We can't even get the building blocks required for a living organism without agency involvement.
IOW assface your position is the joke.
You just don't realize that the people are laughing at you.
At 6:14 PM,
Ghostrider said…
CSI applies to living organisms.
Then why did you spend weeks trying to convince us you could calculate the CSI of a baseball?
You told us you can recognize design without resorting to CSI. Now you say you can't. Which is it dummy?
Your 'make it up as you go' blithering gets more bizarre every day.
And what the hell is wrong with reducibility?
Natural processes have been demonstrated capable of producing 'irreducibly complex' biological structures. That means merely finding an IC structure is not evidence the structure was purposely designed.
The scientific community understands this simple piece of logic. Why can't you?
The following is what the evidence says asshole:
1- Only life begets life.
Define life. Please be specific.
2- We can't even get the building blocks required for a living organism without agency involvement.
So? We can't make South America touch Africa either. Does that somehow invalidate the theory of plate tectonics?
Do you ever think before spouting this gibberish?
At 6:30 PM,
Joe G said…
CSI applies to living organisms.
Then why did you spend weeks trying to convince us you could calculate the CSI of a baseball?
So you don't have any fucking idea and you thought you could just jump in and your ignorance would pull you through.
You told us you can recognize design without resorting to CSI.
And I told you how to do just that.
Your ignorance is not a refutation asshole.
And what the hell is wrong with reducibility?
Natural processes have been demonstrated capable of producing 'irreducibly complex' biological structures.
Design is a natural process assface.
You don't have any evidence that blind, undirected processes can produce IC.
And why did you ignore the following you ignorant coward?:
But anyways what does your position have so that we can compare.
Tell me the criteria used to determine that living organisms are the result of blind, undirected processes?
You want to know what life is read a biology textbook.
And BTW idiot plate tectonics is evidence for ID- it is all in "The Privileged Planet".
Again I love your ignorance...
At 6:48 PM,
Ghostrider said…
You told us you can recognize design without resorting to CSI.
And I told you how to do just that.
No, actually you didn't, especially not for living organisms. You mumbled something about 'counterflow', and ignored the fact that 'counterflow' is just another term for the subjective 'looks designed to me'.
YOU FAIL
You don't have any evidence that blind, undirected processes can produce IC.
Yes, I do.
The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial molecular machine
Clements et al.
PNAS September 15, 2009 vol. 106 no. 37 15791-15795
Abstract
Molecular machines drive essential biological processes, with the component parts of these machines each contributing a partial function or structural element. Mitochondria are organelles of eukaryotic cells, and depend for their biogenesis on a set of molecular machines for protein transport. How these molecular machines evolved is a fundamental question. Mitochondria were derived from an α-proteobacterial endosymbiont, and we identified in α-proteobacteria the component parts of a mitochondrial protein transport machine. In bacteria, the components are found in the inner membrane, topologically equivalent to the mitochondrial proteins. Although the bacterial proteins function in simple assemblies, relatively little mutation would be required to convert them to function as a protein transport machine. This analysis of protein transport provides a blueprint for the evolution of cellular machinery in general.
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/37/15791.abstract
You want to know what life is read a biology textbook.
OK, so you can't define life as it relates to your childish throwaway line 'Only life begets life'. You just like to toss vague undefined terms around. Got it.
And BTW idiot plate tectonics is evidence for ID- it is all in "The Privileged Planet".
LOL! Is there anything in the world you don't claim as 'evidence for ID'?
At 7:18 AM,
Joe G said…
Thorton,
Thank for proving beyond a doubt that you are an ignorant asshole.
We determine design by figuring out what it takes to get what it is we are investigating- we figure out what it is reducible to.
And as far as living organisms are concerned we already know it takes agency involvement just to get the building blocks.
So for a living organism you have to get the parts- which we already know requires agency involvement.
Then you need to get all the parts in the same location at the same time.
Then you need to get those parts properly configured.
Your position can't even account for the parts via blind, undirected processes.
BTW the presence of counterflow/ work is what archaeologists and forensic scientists look for:
Artifact
You don't have any evidence that blind, undirected processes can produce IC.
Yes, I do.
The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial molecular machine
Clements et al.
PNAS September 15, 2009 vol. 106 no. 37 15791-15795
Please show me the part about blind. undirected processes.
You want to know what life is read a biology textbook.
OK, so you can't define life as it relates to your childish throwaway line 'Only life begets life'.
Actually assface if you read a biology textbook that is what you will find.
I took the line straight out of a college-level biology textbook.
And BTW idiot plate tectonics is evidence for ID- it is all in "The Privileged Planet".
Is there anything in the world you don't claim as 'evidence for ID'?
So you are admitting your ignorance of ID.
And you think your ignorance is a refutation.
Not only that but you are also a coward.
Twice in this thread alone I have asked about how it was determined that living organisms are the result of blind, undirected processes and twice you have failed to answer.
At 7:24 AM,
Joe G said…
Reducible Versus Irreducible Systems and Darwinian Versus Non-Darwinian Processes:
To the editor:
Reducible versus irreducible systems and Darwinian versus non-Darwinian processes
The recent paper by Clements et al (1) illustrates the need for more care to avoid non sequiturs in evolutionary narratives. The authors intend to show that Darwinian processes can account for a reducibly complex molecular machine. Yet, even if successful, that would not show that such processes could account for irreducibly complex machines, which Clements et al (1) cite as the chief difficulty for Darwinism raised by intelligent design proponents like myself. Irreducibly complex molecular systems, such as the bacterial flagellum or intracellular transport system, plainly cannot sustain their primary function if a critical mechanical part is removed. (2-4) Like a mousetrap without a spring, they would be broken. Here the authors first postulate (they do not demonstrate) an amino acid transporter that fortuitously also transports proteins inefficiently. (1) They subsequently attempt to show how the efficiency might be improved. A scenario for increasing the efficiency of a pre-existing, reducible function, however, says little about developing a novel, irreducible function.
Even as evidence for the applicability of Darwinian processes just to reducibly complex molecular machines, the data are greatly overinterpreted. A Darwinian pathway is not merely one that proceeds by “numerous, successive, slight modifications” (1) but, crucially, one where mutations are random with respect to any goal, including the future development of the organism. If some mutations arise non-randomly, the process is simply not Darwinian. Yet the authors say nothing about random mutation. Their chief data are sequence similarities between bacterial and mitochondrial proteins. However, the presumably homologous proteins have different functions, and bind non-homologous proteins. What is the likelihood that, say, a Tim44-like precursor would forsake its complex of bacterial proteins to join a complex of other proteins? Is such an event reasonably likely or prohibitively improbable? Clements et al (1) do not provide even crude estimates, let alone rigorous calculations or experiments, and thus provide no support for a formally Darwinian process. Their only relevant data in this regard is their demonstration that a singly-mutated bacterial TimB can substitute for Tim14 in mitochondrial transport. While that is certainly an interesting result, rescuing a pre-existing, functioning system in the laboratory is not at all the same thing as building a novel system step-by-random-step in nature.
Biologists have long been wary of attempts to fill in our lack of knowledge of the history of life with imaginative reconstructions that go far beyond the evidence. As I have discussed (5), extensive laboratory evolution studies over decades offer little support for the plausibility of such felicitous scenarios as Clements et al (1) propose. The authors may well be overlooking formidable difficulties that nature itself would encounter.
References
1. Clements A, et al. (2009) The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial molecular machine. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA doi/10.1073/pnas.0908264106.
2. Behe, MJ (1996) Darwin's Black Box :The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (Free Press, New York).
3. Behe MJ (2000) Self-organization and irreducibly complex systems: A reply to Shanks and Joplin. Phil Sci 67:155-162.
4. Behe MJ (2001) Reply to my critics: A response to reviews of Darwin's Black Box: the biochemical challenge to evolution. Biol Phil 16:685-709.
5. Behe, MJ (2007) The Edge of Evolution: the Search for the Limits of Darwinism (Free Press, New York).
IOW Thorton you have once agian proven you are an ignorant fuck.
Congratulations...
At 10:07 AM,
Ghostrider said…
So for a living organism you have to get the parts- which we already know requires agency involvement.
Then you need to get all the parts in the same location at the same time.
Then you need to get those parts properly configured.
You're probably stupid enough to swallow that nonsense too. Show me anywhere in the primary scientific literature the claim that all the parts of a living organism had to appear and spontaneously assemble all at once.
BTW the presence of counterflow/ work is what archaeologists and forensic scientists look for:
Once again, your claim was that you could use counterflow to detect design in living organisms. You can't do it, just like you can't compute the CSI for a baseball. You're so full of shit your eyes are brown.
At 10:13 AM,
Ghostrider said…
Joe quoting Behe: "waaaah! waaaaah! waaaah!
nuh-un!
waaaah! waaaaah! waaaah!"
Too funny! Clements et al publish their work in PNAS, a top line peer reviewed scientific journal. Behe publishes his whiny 'rebuttal' letter at the Discovery Institute.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
You IDiots make me laugh all day long!
At 4:31 PM,
Joe G said…
Show me anywhere in the primary scientific literature the claim that all the parts of a living organism had to appear and spontaneously assemble all at once.
That isn't what I said you moron.
1- You do have to get the parts
2- To get the parts requires agency involvement- that is what science says
Do you understand that so far?
3- Then you need to get all the parts in the same location at the same time.
If they are not in the same location they cannot be arranged/ configured to make a living organism.
If they are not at the same location at the same time, well you risk cross-contaminations and chemical breakdown- the building blocks are not very stable.
Do you understand that?
4- Then you need to get those parts properly configured.
That is only obvious.
BTW the presence of counterflow/ work is what archaeologists and forensic scientists look for:
Once again, your claim was that you could use counterflow to detect design in living organisms.
detecting design in a living organism
All Thorton can say "is not".
But all Thorton has to do is demonstrate that blind, undirected processes can account for that.
But he won't because he can't.
All Thorton can do is act like a little ignorant cry-baby.
At 4:35 PM,
Joe G said…
Thorton,
You are an intellectual coward and a piece of shit asshole.
Time and again I have asked you to provide positive evidence for your position.
You finally post something but yet you cannot support the claim that it supports your position.
Then you say:
Too funny! Clements et al publish their work in PNAS, a top line peer reviewed scientific journal.
It is very funny that you cannot demonstrate that blind, undirected processes did it.
Neither can Clements et al.
I find that very telling.
Behe wrote to the journal to explain their folly but they are happy with their ignorance.
You are also very happy and proud to be ignorant.
At 6:08 PM,
blipey said…
So, Joe. Your method for determining CSI is for you, JoeTard, to personally handle every object in the universe?
That's not going to catch on. Maybe you could give us a more useful method?
At 6:34 PM,
Joe G said…
Your method for determining CSI is for you, JoeCool, to personally handle every object in the universe?
Spoken like an ignorant asswipe.
Why do you think your ignorance means something?
(I never said nor implied anything of the kind- IOW once again ErikTard pulls a turd from its ass, eats it and spews it)
At 6:47 PM,
blipey said…
Every time we ask you to provide a methodology for determining CSI, you tell us you have to personally see and/or handle the objects.
So, your methodology involves you personally handling everything in the universe.
If this is not the case, please provide us the methodology for determining the CSI of a river rock versus its manufactured copy--as asked for above (when you said that it could not be determined unless you handled it).
At 6:52 PM,
Joe G said…
Every time we ask you to provide a methodology for determining CSI, you tell us you have to personally see and/or handle the objects.
That is false.
Only when assholes start making shit up do I ask to see/ handle the objects.
Also that is how science works- via investigation.
At 6:40 AM,
blipey said…
Just so everyone is clear: You re saying that in order to determine the CSI of a river rock and its copy, you must handle and/or see them?
And, just to be extra clear, when I said that your methodology required you to handle and/or see them, you said, "That is false."
Are you familiar with astronomy, Joe? Are you aware of extra-solar planet hunting techniques? Perhaps you can connect these two thoughts for us?
At 7:10 AM,
Joe G said…
You re saying that in order to determine the CSI of a river rock and its copy, you must handle and/or see them?
Science works via observation and investigation you ignorant faggot.
Please list the scientists who have studied Stonehenge without ever seeing it.
Are you aware of extra-solar planet hunting techniques?
Yup- OBSERVATIONS.
Astronomers definitely don't take the words of assholes like you and Thorton.
Are you aware of that?
At 12:17 PM,
blipey said…
I see you forgot to address the error you made. I'll state it again so that you can easily explain yourself.
JoeTard methodology: I must handle and/or see the rocks.
Blipey: your methodology involves you having to handle and/or see any object to determine if CSI is present?
JoeTard: "That is false."
Perhaps you would like to reconsider?
At 5:37 PM,
Joe G said…
I see you forgot to address the error you made.
The only "error" is allowing your ignorance to pollute my blog.
But I let you post here because you are an ignorant yet entertaining piece of shit.
You said:
Every time we ask you to provide a methodology for determining CSI, you tell us you have to personally see and/or handle the objects.
Not me personally asshole.
But in order for SCIENCE to say something about it it must be examined by a qualified person- it doesn't have to be me, personally.
But if someone is going to ask MY FUCKING OPINION then I would say yes, I need to examine it.
Why is it that I need to spoon feed you the obvious every freaking time?
Are you that bent on trying to "win" an argument you have to twist every little thing I post?
What a pathetic shit-head
At 8:00 PM,
blipey said…
Right. And WE ARE ASKING YOU. You. JoeTard. So, when I said that YOU need to examine it, this was a true statement.
Maybe now would be a good time for you to explain the methodology used to search for extra-solar planets.
Please explain, you may find it interesting.
At 8:42 PM,
Joe G said…
Erik,
Do you think scientists reach their inferences via meditation?
Or do they actually have to study what it is they are trying to explain?
Are you a total fucking imbecile or just a drooling moron?
At 9:25 PM,
blipey said…
You don't have any idea how extra-solar planets are found, do you?
At 7:02 AM,
Joe G said…
Unfortunately for you I know exactly how they do that.
And I know it involves observations and investigation.
But you, OTOH, are too stupid to understand that is how science operates.
At 6:10 PM,
blipey said…
If you know exactly how they do it, what is keeping you from giving us a brief rundown? Is your complete lack of knowledge on how its done? Come on, Joe. Stop making assertions and prove to everyone that you know what you're talking about.
How are extra-solar planets searched for? Remember, this ha direct bearing on your claim for river rocks. Strange, huh?
At 8:32 PM,
Joe G said…
How are extra-solar planets searched for? Remember, this ha direct bearing on your claim for river rocks.
Explain this alleged "direct bearing".
Are you trying to say that because we don't always directly observe the extra-solar planet that its presence was detected without any observation nor investigation?
Does the word barycenter mean anything to you?
Do you understand that I have owned and operated a telescope(s) for longer than you have lived?
I currently own three- use two.
This one gets me up close and personal.
I also have a motorized programmable 4.5" aperature 910mm focal length. It helps me locate hard to find objects.
I have been doing this shit for years Erik.
I spied with my eye more moons around Jupiter and Saturn when textbooks were pushing less.
So to find an extra-solar planet astronomers LOOK FOR certain signs- things an extra-solar planet- or something of some mass anyway- would produce.
With design detection we LOOK FOR certain signs- things agency involvement would produce.
When hunters go out hunting they LOOK FOR signs- things their prey (and predators) would produce.
When a forensic scientist is trying to determine if a crime has been committed she LOOKS FOR for certain signs- things a criminal would have done.
Is any of this getting through?
At 8:56 PM,
blipey said…
Very good, Joe.
We've established that in order to do science, as you are so fond of saying, you don't have to handle and/or see everything. In fact, we've established that scientists follow these steps, in this order:
1. Have an idea of what to look for
2. Look for it
So, let's "Do science"!!!
Joe, what is it that you are going to look for with the river rock and its copy? That's step one. You've not addressed it. Remember, astronomers are very specific in what they're looking for: wobble, light output, etc.
So, I'm sure you can be very specific in your answer. Thanks.
At 9:04 PM,
Joe G said…
We've established that in order to do science, as you are so fond of saying, you don't have to handle and/or see everything.
I disagree.
As a matter of fact I said the opposite.
They have to make an observation or observations.
That means they have to see something.
In fact, we've established that scientists follow these steps, in this order:
1. Have an idea of what to look for
2. Look for it
I disagree.
Scientists don't have to follow any steps, in any order.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/nature_05
There is no such thing as "THE Scientific Method."
If you go to science fairs or read scientific journals, you may get the impression that science is nothing more than "question-hypothesis-procedure-data-conclusions."
But this is seldom the way scientists actually do their work. Most scientific thinking, whether done while jogging, in the shower, in a lab, or while excavating a fossil, involves continuous observations, questions, multiple hypotheses, and more observations. It seldom "concludes" and never "proves."
At 9:10 PM,
Joe G said…
Joe, what is it that you are going to look for with the river rock and its copy?
I don't care about the hypothetical river rock and its hypothetical copy.
Unlike extra-solar planets they do not exist.
Ya see Throton said it was a baseball-sized rock.
Yet that doesn't make any sense.
A piece of granite with the circumferance of a baseball would weigh much more.
And a piece of granite that weighed the same as a baseball would be smaller.
So how the fuck can a piece of granite be baseball-sized?
IOW fuck-off clownie I am not playing your moronic game.
At 11:47 PM,
blipey said…
That's right, Joe. They have to see something. They do not, however, have to see the object they are studying and/or looking for.
This methodology is in direct opposition to your claim that you must see and/or handle the object (river rock) that you are studying.
Joe, you agree that astronomers searching for extra-solar planets do not have to see or handle the planet they are looking for.
So you must agree that seeing or handling an object is not a requisite for studying or analyzing it.
At 11:48 PM,
blipey said…
River rocks don't exist? What world are you living in, Joe?
Are you claiming that river rocks don't exist?
That people are unable to make replicas of river rocks?
Or both?
At 11:52 PM,
blipey said…
Can hail be baseball sized Joe?
Can a car be the size of a rhino?
Can a loaf of bread be the size of shoebox?
You really are retarded. Saying something is the size of something else is a perfectly legitimate way to communicate.
If a shoe box is 5" X 8" X 14" and I have a loaf of bread that is 5" X 8" X 14", it is perfectly acceptable to say that the loaf of bread is the size of a shoebox.
Hi-fucking-larious!!!
At 1:20 AM,
Ghostrider said…
So how the fuck can a piece of granite be baseball-sized?
It can be a sphere with a circumference between 9 and 9 1/4 inches, same as an actual baseball.
Are you as much of a dumbass in real life as you are on the web?
How can you tell the difference between a naturally created river rock that size and a human created copy by measuring the CSI?
You told us how to measure the CSI in a real baseball, now tell us how to do it in those two examples.
We've only asked you that about a dozen times now, and you've been too much of a chickenshit coward to answer.
Are you as much of a chickenshit coward in real life as you are on the web?
At 9:34 AM,
Joe G said…
So how the fuck can a piece of granite be baseball-sized?
It can be a sphere with a circumference between 9 and 9 1/4 inches, same as an actual baseball.
Then it would weigh more than a baseball which means it is not "baseball-size".
Are you as much of a dumbass in real life as you are on the web?
Only a dumbass would think a peice of granite with the same circumference as a baseball is "baseball-sized".
Have you ever played baseball?
How can you tell the difference between a naturally created river rock that size and a human created copy by measuring the CSI?
Explain the relevance of your question.
I don't see how it relates to anything I have posted.
Asa matter of fact I see it as another sign of your ignorance.
You told us how to measure the CSI in a real baseball, now tell us how to do it in those two examples.
What is the relevance?
Are you as much of a chickenshit coward in real life as you are on the web?
Meet me and find out you chickenshit faggot.
At 9:40 AM,
Joe G said…
That's right, Joe. They have to see something.
Exactly as I have been saying.
They do not, however, have to see the object they are studying and/or looking for.
They don't study the extra-solar planet.
They can only tell one is present- and they can't do that with 100% certainty.
This methodology is in direct opposition to your claim that you must see and/or handle the object (river rock) that you are studying.
Only to an igniorant fuck- like yourself.
They aren't studying that extra-solar planet they think exists.
To do that they need to see it directly.
Joe, you agree that astronomers searching for extra-solar planets do not have to see or handle the planet they are looking for.
They have to make some observation and they have to be able to investigate that observation.
And they do not study that planet until they can directly observe it.
So you must agree that seeing or handling an object is not a requisite for studying or analyzing it.
Already covered.
At 9:41 AM,
Joe G said…
Are you claiming that river rocks don't exist?
I was very clear assface-
Thorton's rocks don't exist.
Nothing to analyze.
Nobody cares.
At 9:44 AM,
Joe G said…
If a shoe box is 5" X 8" X 14" and I have a loaf of bread that is 5" X 8" X 14", it is perfectly acceptable to say that the loaf of bread is the size of a shoebox.
I disagree. Well perhaps it is OK to say that in an informal gathering of imbeciles- perhaps even a formal gathering.
But never in a scientific setting- never when discussing science.
It is OK to say y=the shoe box and loaf of bread have the same dimensions.
But if they do not weigh the same then they are not the same size.
At 10:22 AM,
Joe G said…
There is a river about 1/10th of a mile from my house.
I dig stuff out of it all the time.
So when I find aluminum cans in the river I can be assured that the river made those cans?
When I find fishing poles in the river does it mean the river made them?
The river made the fish that swim in it?
The point being is just because Thorton found a rock in a river doesn't mean the river made the rock nor does it mean the river made it smooth and round.
At 6:42 PM,
blipey said…
In what world does the word "size" mean "weight"? Perhaps you should look those two words up.
When the police ask how large the bag was that you saw being dumped in the river and you reply, "about the size of a piano." are you conveying actual information or gibberish?
JHC, you're a retard. It's a wondr that police ever solve anything with so many people using comparative language....
At 7:39 PM,
Joe G said…
In what world does the word "size" mean "weight"?
In boxing, UFC, wrestling- most sports.
I am sure it has a bearing in mechanics too, as well as electronics.
I am sure in science it is perfectly normal to answer the question of size with that of mass.
And if the police asked me about the size of te ecriminal I saw I would give both height AND weight estimates.
I am not going to say someone 6' 1" is "my size" if the fucker is as skinny as you- that would be very misleading to a cop.
Do you understand that you little ignorant twerp?
Size is both.
Educated people have a big word- we use DIMENSIONS- if that is what we wish to convey.
Again Erik- you are a clown for a reason.
Deal with it.
At 8:44 PM,
Joe G said…
Back to extra-solar planets-
We agree that science at least has a way of detecting their presence.
Compare that with Thorton's rocks.
Is that the "direct bearing" blipey was looking for?
And they call me retarded...
At 9:21 PM,
blipey said…
Before we get back to extra-solar planets, lets address the issue of the "BAG" that you saw and described to the police. Do you often give the height of bag to describe it? Boxers are divided by weight class, Joe, not size.
An interesting side point to your redefinition of the word "size" was brought up over at AtBC.
1 pound of aardvark cannot weigh the same as 1 pound of granite because they are not the same size. What say you?...
Now, back to extra-solar planets.
You claimed above that astronomers don't study extra-solar planets. How is that the then know their size? Hahahaha! I slay me! Their SIZE! In fact, many of them are described as Jupiter-sized. What could that possibly mean? Astronomers are so stoopid. I wish we could figure out what they're talking about.
So, tell us two things:
1. How do scientists know anything about extra-solar planets (like their size and composition) without studying them?
You may want to study the following equation:
T^2 = [4(pi)r^3]/[GM]
where
T = the orbital period
r = the semimajor orbital axis
G = the gravitational constant
and
M = mass of star
Without observing the planet directly, tell us what can be determined, Joe.
At 9:37 PM,
Joe G said…
Before we get back to extra-solar planets, lets address the issue of the "BAG" that you saw and described to the police.
What bag?
Do you often give the height of bag to describe it?
DIMENSIONS, color, type
Boxers are divided by weight class, Joe, not size.
Weight is part of size in boxing.
The boxer's size is a combo- height/ weight with a little reach thrown in.
A football player's size- height AND weight.
An interesting side point to your redefinition of the word "size" was brought up over at AtBC.
I didn't redefine size.
Your ignorance doesn't mean I redefined something.
As for all tards bloviating chicanery, well what else should I expect from evotards?
1 pound of aardvark cannot weigh the same as 1 pound of granite because they are not the same size.What say you?...
I say they are not the same size just because they are the same weight.
Is a 1 lb pizza dough rolled out to a 16" pizza the same size as a 1 lb lead slug?
Your tard grows deep clownie.
At 9:38 PM,
blipey said…
I thought we were talking about extra-solar planets. You should google the equation, Joe.
At 9:41 PM,
blipey said…
But, while you try to figure out what the equation has to do with baseball-sized river rocks, we probably have some free time.
Are boxers put into classes based on their reach?
Are they put into classes based on their height?
They are put into classes based entirely on their weight, Joe. Any other measurements are immaterial. Weight does not equal size, even in boxing.
At 9:46 PM,
Joe G said…
You claimed above that astronomers don't study extra-solar planets. How is that the then know their size? Hahahaha! I slay me! Their SIZE! In fact, many of them are described as Jupiter-sized. What could that possibly mean? Astronomers are so stoopid. I wish we could figure out what they're talking about.
Mass- I told you that already.
Jupiter-size means it has the same MASS, not necessarily the same DIMENSIONS.
And how do they know about the extra-solar planets?
BY MAKING OBSERVATIONS AND INVESTIGATING THOSE OBSERVATIONS.
They collect data- as much as possible- BARYCENTER- LOOK IT UP.
That is how they figure the MASS.
You do a spectral analysis of the star so you know what it is made of and then determine its MASS.
Once you know what the star is made of you should have a good idea of the composition of the planet- you know what was available to make it.
Wobble- barycenter- MASS of the tugging object.
Stuff available- possible composition of the planet.
Compare that to studying Jupiter or any planet in this solar system.
What next clownie?
More flailing I predict...
At 9:49 PM,
Joe G said…
Are boxers put into classes based on their reach?
Are they put into classes based on their height?
They are put into classes based entirely on their weight, Joe. Any other measurements are immaterial. Weight does not equal size, even in boxing.
How many 3 foot 200 lb boxers have you ever seen?
A boxer's size is his/ her height and weight.
Are you really that stupid?
Have you ever boxed?
At 9:50 PM,
Joe G said…
I thought we were talking about extra-solar planets.
You don't have any idea what you are talking about.
You are just a blind parrot...
At 9:51 PM,
blipey said…
What??? They determined ALL that by not even directly observing the planet???? Surely not!
I have it on good authority that:
"They aren't studying that extra-solar planet they think exists. To do that they need to see it directly."
Some genius said that.
At 9:54 PM,
Joe G said…
Right you ignorant asswipe-
Compare that to studying Jupiter and any other planet in our solar system.
Nice of you to ignore that part of my post.
At 9:55 PM,
Joe G said…
Also as I said we can at least detect extra-solar planets.
We can't even do that with Thorton's rocks.
But keep flailing away your tard is entertaining.
At 9:55 PM,
blipey said…
Theoretically, what division would they put a 3', 200 lb boxer in, Joe?
The 3 foot division? Or the Cruiserweight Division?
I'll bet one of them is right.
At 9:56 PM,
blipey said…
Oh no. Now we're back to claiming that river rocks don't exist.
At 9:58 PM,
Joe G said…
So to sum up I said scientists need to make observations and conduct investigations.
In order to refute my claim blipey brings up detecting extra-solar planets which require quite a bit of observation and investigation.
You are freak Erik...
At 9:58 PM,
blipey said…
Anywho, about the equation, you never did tell us what we might discover with it. But, since you've conceded the point in your last couple comments, that's okay. I'm glad we agree.
At 10:01 PM,
blipey said…
No, Joe. You said we needed to handle and see the objects in order to study them. That's quite a different claim than merely making observations. Why the change of heart?
At 10:04 PM,
Joe G said…
Theoretically, what division would they put a 3', 200 lb boxer in, Joe?
There isn't any such thing as a theoretical boxer you moron.
Oh no. Now we're back to claiming that river rocks don't exist.
I never made that claim.
Are that you much of a dishonest fuck?
Anywho, about the equation, you never did tell us what we might discover with it. But, since you've conceded the point in your last couple comments, that's okay.
Erik I have forgotten more about astronomy than you will ever know- and I don't forget.
Compare what we know about extra-solar planets to what we know about Jupiter.
Compare how we can "study" extra-solar planets compared to how we can study Jupiter.
There isn't any comparison.
For now "studying" extra-solar planets is exremely limited.
So yes we agree that you are a dishoenst fuck.
At 10:06 PM,
Joe G said…
You said we needed to handle and see the objects in order to study them.
We do.
By calculating their mass we aren't studying them asshole.
By trying to determine what they are made of we aren't studying them.
Go play in traffic to fucking retard.
And stop listening to the others retards at atbc
At 10:06 PM,
blipey said…
Could you give us the name of the equation? Just for shits and grins?
At 10:10 PM,
blipey said…
Alright. Let's say Minute Bol is a boxer. What classification is he in?
7'7" Division? or Heavyweight?
Which one?
At 10:12 PM,
blipey said…
To study is to learn something about something, Joe. Your position is moronic beyond belief. Could you email this thread to an educator of your choice and have them send me their opinion on it?
At 10:15 PM,
blipey said…
Correction to above:
it should have read, "Your positionS are moronic beyond belief..."
At 10:17 PM,
Joe G said…
You are a pussy Erik.
Could you give us the name of the equation? Just for shits and grins?
I have answered enough of your dumbass questions.
But if you mean the equation someone gave you to post here I beoieve it is Newton's form of Kepler's third law- but I could be mistaken, I don't use formulas these days.
Alright. Let's say Minute Bol is a boxer.
He's not.
However you are a faggot.
To study is to learn something about something, Joe.
We aren't studying the extra-solar planets.
We are studying their surroundings to make a case for the planet.
And no I wouldn't waste any educator's time with your ignorance.
You are so pathetically ignorant it is amazing you can use a computer.
At 10:18 PM,
blipey said…
JoeTard: "By trying to determine what they are made of we aren't studying them."
Can we extend this to, "By trying to determine if an object is designed we aren't studying them?"
or
"By researching the history of the travel of the Romani people in order to determine their origins and genetic heritage, WE AREN'T STUDYING THEM"?
At 10:20 PM,
Joe G said…
Erik,
YOU calling my positions moronic is a compliment.
You are about the most ignorant person I have ever dealt with.
Here is more proof:
Can we extend this to, "By trying to determine if an object is designed we aren't studying them?"
Asshole ID is about the detection and study- so yes we do study it while try to detect design but once design is determined we then study it in that light.
At 10:25 PM,
blipey said…
Blipey: Alright. Let's say Minute Bol is a boxer.
JoeG: He's not.
Reality
At 10:28 PM,
blipey said…
Oh, I see. We study things when ID people look at them, but when other people look at other things, they aren't studying them That makes sense.
You know what Minute Bol's boxing record is? Hint: it's not 0-0.
At 10:30 PM,
blipey said…
Is that equation some of the nothing you've forgotten? In addition to everything else, do you also have no google skillz?
At 10:33 PM,
Joe G said…
blipey,
That Bol has boxed doesn't make him a boxer.
Man you just have to be dishonest.
Or are you really that ignorant?
But anyway-
A boxer's SIZE is determined by his/ her height AND WEIGHT- reach is thrown in in case of a tie between those two.
That is a fact that blipey is ignorant of.
So what does the tard do?
Bring up weight-classifications.
I am talking about the boxer's SIZE- which includes everything including weight.
At 10:35 PM,
Joe G said…
Oh, I see. We study things when ID people look at them, but when other people look at other things, they aren't studying them That makes sense.
No you don't see.
You area twisted little punk who thinks because he can type what he types is true.
You are a sick little faggot Erik.
Seek help or commit suicide- please.
At 10:36 PM,
Joe G said…
Is that equation some of the nothing you've forgotten? In addition to everything else, do you also have no google skillz?
Your cry-baby skillz are duly noted.
At 10:37 PM,
blipey said…
Joe, you are saying that boxers are differentiated and classed by something other than weight. This is simply false.
Minute Bol had to be classed to have a sanctioned fight. What class was he put into? What other fighters are in this class? What is the single criterion that is used to group these fighters?
At 10:40 PM,
blipey said…
Shit man, I practically defined it for you.
Now about emailing this thread to an educator of your choice...
Can you let me in on who your short list is? I know, I know, I shouldn't peek, but I'm all tingly inside.
Could you maybe get Dembski to comment on this thread? That'd be super cool and all the cheerleaders would think you're cute and everything!
At 10:42 PM,
Joe G said…
Joe, you are saying that boxers are differentiated and classed by something other than weight.
No I am not.
This is what I have been saying- you are a twisted little fuck!
You disgust me you little freak.
I said the SIZE of the boxer is determined by his/ her height AND weight- with reach thrown in.
Go shoot yourself- do society a favor.
At 10:44 PM,
Joe G said…
Shit man, I practically defined it for you.
Defined what?
Are you talking about the equation?
Did you not understand my answer?
Could you repeat my answer so I know you read it?
At 10:44 PM,
blipey said…
No it's not. Size has no definition in boxing.
At 10:45 PM,
blipey said…
Follow along, Joe. It's not hard, but it'd be easier if you wouldn't screen your comments like someone afraid of their own shadow.
At 10:47 PM,
Joe G said…
No it's not. Size has no definition in boxing.
Your ignorance has no definition.
Read carefully-
A boxer's size includes his/ her height and weight (reach).
Why do you think there is a "tale of the tape"?
So we can size up the fighters.
How do you think we determine the size of a boxer?
Just by weight?
No you already said weight is not size.
Just by height?
No boxing clssification isn't by height.
So what method does an ignorant clown think we use to determine the size of a boxer?
At 10:49 PM,
Joe G said…
Follow along Erik- you don't know what you are talking about asshole.
Night-night
At 10:53 PM,
blipey said…
We don't determine the size of a boxer, Joe. You've only cited yourself as a source that your definition is true. That's stupid all by itself.
On the other hand, I have offered an actual system of classification that you have yet to refute or even address.
Boxers are classed by weight. The WBO, IBA, IBF, and WBA all classify boxers by weight, and weight alone. The is no definition of "size" by any ruling body in the sport.
Size, as far as boxing is concerned, is not defined or used. In fact, no concept of "weight, height, and a little reach" is used. BTW, how much reach is "a little reach" and why don't they throw ll of it in?
At 9:38 AM,
Joe G said…
We don't determine the size of a boxer, Joe.
Yes we do.
That is what the "tale of the tape" is for.
Boxers are classed by weight.
I know that but that has NOTHING to do with what I am saying.
However that does refute your nonsense as it appears in boxing size is determined by weight.
blipey said:
In what world does the word "size" mean "weight"?
Obviously in the boxing world.
And clownie even made the point for me!
Size, as far as boxing is concerned, is not defined or used.
Tell that to the boxers, trainers, managers and gamblers.
BTW, how much reach is "a little reach" and why don't they throw ll of it in?
Reach has something to do with size asshole.
As I said if two boxers are the same height and weight the only variable left is reach.
But all this is moot because you have made the case that weight is size in boxing.
And that is all I wanted to demonstrate.
At 9:45 AM,
Joe G said…
When the police are looking for a suspect the suspect's size is both his/ her height and weight.
At 10:50 AM,
Joe G said…
OK say we have two boxers-
Boxer A is 6'3" and weighs 320 lbs
Boxer B is also 6'3" but weighs 220 lbs
Is boxer A bigger than boxer B?
Is boxer A smaller than boxer B?
Or are boxer A and boxer B the same size?
At 2:23 PM,
Joe G said…
If size has nothing to do with weight, as blipey claims, then why, when asked the size of a newborn baby, is the answer always in pounds and ounces?
The length is almost always an after-thought.
Erik just do the right thing and admit you don't know what you are talking about.
At 5:30 PM,
blipey said…
No, Joe. As you've said, size has to do with dimensions. A 320 lb human is obviously larger, dimensionally, than a 220 lb human of the same height.
You are attempting to make weight a component of dimension. Stop it.
The Tale of the Tape is not a ranking, classifying, or organizing system, Joe. It is a television graphic put up to fill time while the ring announcer does paperwork.
At 6:22 PM,
Joe G said…
A 320 lb human is obviously larger, dimensionally, than a 220 lb human of the same height.
You are attempting to make weight a component of dimension.
Apparently the weight determines the dimensions.
So it must be a component- at least in this case.
The Tale of the Tape is not a ranking, classifying, or organizing system, Joe.
I never said it was.
I said it is a way to size-up the fighters- and it is.
At 6:25 PM,
Joe G said…
As for weight and dimensions- well we know 1 pound of fat takes up more space than 1 pound of muscle.
So it is easy to see a 220 lb fat person is bigger in dimension than a 230 lb physically fit 9% body-fat person of the same height.
Yet the 230 lb person is obviously bigger.
At 7:34 PM,
Joe G said…
As you've said, size has to do with dimensions.
No, I said size is more than dimensions.
But anyway you asked the question-
In what world does the word "size" mean "weight"?
We have determined that in boxing weight has a lot to do with size.
We know that with babies weight has almost everything to do with size.
Add fishing to the list of worlds in which the word weight is part of size.
Now you can see that I have indeed responded to you.
Many times I have shot down your nonsense.
Perhaps you don't consider that as responding...
At 8:07 PM,
Joe G said…
BTW this:
T^2 = [4(pi)r^3]/[GM]
Should be:
T^2 = [4(pi^2)r^3]/[GM]
Right?
At 8:07 PM,
Ghostrider said…
Joe, your infantile diaper-soiling stupidity over the meaning of "size" is not going to let you wiggle out of the question.
If we start with a smooth naturally occurring river rock of any size and design/manufacture a perfect replica, you still need to explain how to tell the designed one from the naturally occurring one by measuring the CSI.
I've got $20 that says you can't do it, but will whine like a little girl trying to evade the question.
Prove me wrong.
At 8:11 PM,
Joe G said…
If we start with a smooth naturally occurring river rock of any size and design/manufacture a perfect replica, you still need to explain how to tell the designed one from the naturally occurring one by measuring the CSI.
I am going to ask you one more time-
What is the relevance of your pathetic question?
Do you think a geologist could tell the difference?
That is who you should be asking asshole.
At 8:16 PM,
Joe G said…
Thorton- the following highlights the issues with what you are trying to do:
1- You have to demonstrate the river rock wasn't an artifact
2- CSI is all about REQUIREMENTS- that is "is CSI required"?
At 8:44 PM,
Ghostrider said…
Looks like I won the $20, since you did indeed whine like a little girl and evade the question.
The river rock is naturally occurring because that's the premise of the question you moron.
No, a geologist can't tell the difference between the no-CSI-required original and the high-CSI-required designed identical copy.
You said you could tell if an object was designed simply by measuring the CSI it contains.
Everyone can see you can't do it. It was just more bullshit on your part, just like the rest of your idiotic ID claims.
At 10:20 PM,
blipey said…
Yes, Joe. I forgot to square pi when I typed the equation. That's a good catch, it only took you 2 days to google it and find an error. Not bad.
However, you forgot to tell us what can be determined from it, you know, concerning extra-solar planets.
At 10:22 PM,
blipey said…
No, Joe. Weight does not determine size. Ask someone--perhaps even the same educator you are going to mail this thread to.
Remember to ask him to email me his analysis of the thread.
At 10:26 PM,
blipey said…
Joe, if he demonstrated the river rock was copy, then all of your work is done before you ask the question.
The question, very simply, is how would you go about determining copies of anything from the genuine anything--using CSI.
You can pick the objects. They could be genuine Manet paintings and forgeries. They could be river rocks and copies. They could be Vocal patterns and an impersonator. Whatever.
You choose. We really don't care what the objects are. What you have never done is shown how you use CSI to differentiate between any of these pairs of objects.
Is that because you can't?
At 6:54 AM,
Joe G said…
Weight does not determine size.
That wasn't my claim asshole.
And I have more than proven that weight is part of what determines size.
At 6:56 AM,
Joe G said…
No, a geologist can't tell the difference between the no-CSI-required original and the high-CSI-required designed identical copy.
Why not?
And how do you know that?
And what part of the following didn'tyou understand?
1- You have to demonstrate the river rock wasn't an artifact
2- CSI is all about REQUIREMENTS- that is "is CSI required"?
Please be specific or admit that you are an ignorant asshole.
At 7:01 AM,
Joe G said…
The question, very simply, is how would you go about determining copies of anything from the genuine anything--using CSI.
That doesn't have anything to do with ID.
What you have never done is shown how you use CSI to differentiate between any of these pairs of objects.
I never claimed that it could be done.
Never.
IOW all you have proven is that you are both ignoarant and think you can erect a strawman that refutes something.
Exactly what is it this "example" is supposed to prove?
That Dembski is right?
He did say that agencies can mimic nature, operating freely and in those cases we may not be able to determine design.
That is in "No Free Lunch".
IOW the question doesn't have any relevance.
At 7:04 AM,
Joe G said…
I forgot to square pi when I typed the equation. That's a good catch, it only took you 2 days to google it and find an error.
I knew something was wrong from the start.
I knew you copied it from one some other asshole.
I just had to think about it- not use google.
And your badgering helped me do just that.
But anyways the extra-solar planets demonstrates that scientists indeed have to make observations and do a thorough investigation before reaching an inference.
At 7:06 AM,
Joe G said…
The river rock is naturally occurring because that's the premise of the question you moron.
It is a bogus hypothetical question you freak.
And it appears that no one can examine theese rocks- so it isn't a scientific question.
At 7:14 AM,
Joe G said…
You said you could tell if an object was designed simply by measuring the CSI it contains.
So you can't even follow along.
If had been following along you would have read that I do not use CSI to determine if an object is designed.
I said if I am given an object then I look for counterflow/ work.
If I am given something in which I can directly count the bits- like a living organism or computer program- then I use CSI.
And if an intelligent agency can mimic nature, operating freely, then counterflow/ work may not be present.
Again Dembski goes over that in "No Free Lunch".
But all of that is moot.
You cannot refute ID with your ignorance.
The only way to refute ID is by actually substantiating the claims of YOUR position.
However it is obvious that you both are too fucking stupid to do that- too stupid to even try to do that.
IOW it is obvious that you two are intellectual cowards.
At 7:43 PM,
blipey said…
I'm sorry, what is CSI used for again?
You don't use it to determine if something was designed or not.
You don't use it compare forgeries with the genuine article.
You don't use it to tell if something is more or less complex than another thing.
What good is it? especially as regards the first item. Since ID is about determining design and CSI is not used for determining design, why do IDiots bring it up?
Relevancy:
The question, very simply, is how would you go about determining copies of anything from the genuine anything--using CSI.
JoeG: "That doesn't have anything to do with ID."
At 8:07 PM,
Joe G said…
I'm sorry, what is CSI used for again?
I know you are sorry.
You are incapable of understanding CSI- you are a clown.
You don't use it to determine if something was designed or not.
You don't. I can.
You don't use it compare forgeries with the genuine article.
It would all depend on the forgery.
Again your investigative ignorance means nothing.
The question, very simply, is how would you go about determining copies of anything from the genuine anything--using CSI.
Do you think just because you can be an asshole that your "arguments" mean something?
How do scientists detect forgeries now?
How do we detect plagerism now?
Why do you think you can force ID to fit into your ignorant narrow-minded PoV?
Post a Comment
<< Home