-
Evolutionism is the belief that all living organisms owe their collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms via an accumulation of genetic accidents.
IOW as the current theory of evolution is understood is "evolutionism"*.
The problem with evolutionism is that there isn't any positive evidence to support it.
All evolutionitwits have is to ignorantly attack ID and IDists.
Why is that?
*Now if anyone doubts that I will gladly discuss it with you
Surprisingly, Joe does a strawman.
ReplyDeleteWhat strawman?
ReplyDeletePlease be specific.
Ernst Mayr in Animal Species and Evolution:
ReplyDelete"all evolution is due to the accumulation of small genetic changes..."
And all genetic changes are mistakes/ accidents according to the ToE.
can you tell us what the CSI of a strawman is?
ReplyDeleteWhat strawman?
ReplyDeletePlease be specific.
It looks like both Hawks and blipey are not only ignorant of ID and science, they are also ignorant of the theory of evolution.
ReplyDeleteNo surprise there...
Joke G. :What strawman?
ReplyDeletePlease be specific."
This strawman Joke G.
From Wiki on "evolutionism":
In the modern scientific community, the term is considered an anachronism and redundant since the overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution, and so it is not used. To say someone is a scientist implies evolutionary views. In the creation-evolution controversy, creationists often call those who accept the validity of the modern evolutionary synthesis "evolutionists" and the theory itself as "evolutionism." Some creationists and creationist organizations, such as the Institute of Creation Research, use these terms in an effort to make it appear that evolutionary biology is a form of secular religion.
Thorton,
ReplyDeleteI explained what I meant by "evolutionism".
Are you that fucking ignorant that you couldn't even understand that?
Also if there were some positive evidence for it then it wouldn't be "evolutionism".
So what are you waiting for?
IOW Throton, far from being a starwman what I said is exactly how it is.
ReplyDeleteDeal with it.
Is there a CSI calculation on this thread? If not, could you point me to any thread, anywhere, that has the calculation for an actual object?
ReplyDeleteIs there a CSI calculation on this thread?
ReplyDeleteNo and more noticeably there isn't any positive evidence for your position.
Why is that?
If not, could you point me to any thread, anywhere, that has the calculation for an actual object?
I told you how to figure it out.
Obviously you are too stupid to understand what I posted.
IOW once again you prove why you are a clown.
So, there is no thread--anywhere--that actually calculates the CSI of anything.
ReplyDeleteThanks. That clears up the status o CSI as a useful tool.
So, there is no thread--anywhere--that actually calculates the CSI of anything.
ReplyDeleteYes that thread exists and you have read it.
Also there are several threads that tell you how to measure specified information.
Thanks. That clears up the status o CSI as a useful tool.
There isn't any such thing as a useful tool in your hands.
Not even that little thing you try to play with.
I've read a thread that purports to calculate the CSI of a definition.... As discussed, this is not the CSI of the object. So, if this thread exists, please link to it.
ReplyDeleteI've read a thread that purports to calculate the CSI of a definition.... As discussed, this is not the CSI of the object.
ReplyDeleteA word is an object.
And you said:
So, there is no thread--anywhere--that actually calculates the CSI of anything.
The definition covers that.
IOW clownie thank you for continuing to prove that you are an ignorant fuck.
And as I said I explained how to do it with something else.
So obviously you are too stupid to understand what I posted.
Also it is very clear that you cannot stay on topic and cannot support your position.
That tells me you no longer want to post here.
Happy to oblige.
6 responses from evolutionitwits and not one presents any positive evidence for their position.
ReplyDeleteGo figure...
IOW another prediction fulfilled.
Thanks guys.
Hmmm. The I of a cake? No. The I of a baseball? No. The I of an aardvark? No.
ReplyDeletePlease link to the thread that provides the information content of a useful object--you know, something biological or geological, or well anything....
Thanks.
Joe, I heard you mention how you have spoken to students about ID and Evolution and used the examples of comments to support your view when speaking to the students. I'm curious how the vulgar language you use on this blog goes over in the classroom.
ReplyDeleteAtomic Chimp
Hmmm. The I of a cake? No. The I of a baseball? No. The I of an aardvark? No.
ReplyDeleteNot until you do the work.
I will do the counting because obviously you are too stupid to do so.
But you either have to ante up and pay me or shut upo because you are too stupid to understand anything.
Please link to the thread that provides the information content of a useful object--you know, something biological or geological, or well anything....
I explained how to do it and what you have to do.
You refuse to cooperate because you are an ignorant little ass-muncher.
Thanks.
You're welcome.
Atomic Chimp,
ReplyDeleteI present ID and tell students it is not anti-evolution.
I tell them what all the fuss is about and use the posts here to prove my points:
1- There isn't any evidence for blind, undirected processes
2- What lengths people will go to to try to hide that fact
And yes I provide a language warning but I also censor what I present.
They don't hear me speak like that because they are not as willfully ignorant as your general evolutionitwit.
Aha, found the strawman comment:
ReplyDeleteApart from you having your own version of what evolutions is, there is this:
All evolutionitwits have is to ignorantly attack ID and IDists.
Why is that?
Lie.
Apart from you having your own version of what evolutions is, there is this:
ReplyDeleteI don't have a different version oif what evolution is.
I am not even talking about evolution- as evolution just refers to the change in allele frequency over time.
I made it clear what I was talking about and it fits in what most, if not all, evolutionary biologists have to say about it
All evolutionitwits have is to ignorantly attack ID and IDists.
Why is that?
Lie.
All evidence to the contrary of course.
I have noticed you cannot produce positive evidence for evolutionism.
I have noticed that no one can.
And I have noticed that you butt-wipes constantly attack ID.
IOW once again you prove that you are full of shit.
When you discuss ID with students, how do you present CSI? What examples of Information calculations do you present and for what biological organisms? How do they respond to these calculations?
ReplyDeleteWhen you discuss ID with students, how do you present CSI?
ReplyDeleteThe proper way.
What examples of Information calculations do you present and for what biological organisms?
The only calculation is figuring out how many bits per nucleotide.
2^2 = 2 bits.
The rest is mere counting.
And I tell them to pick out any structure with biological function and count the nucleotides.
But basically I limit myself to talking about organisms- as in the minimal complexity required.
How do they respond to these calculations?
Unlike you they are actually smart enough to understand what I say.
Which makes your efforts pretty pathetic.
So how about getting back on topic and actually present some positive evidence for your position...
I have noticed you cannot produce positive evidence for evolutionism.
ReplyDeleteLiar. I have stated that evolution can make proper predictions.
I have noticed you cannot produce positive evidence for evolutionism.
ReplyDeleteLiar.
I have looked and you are the liar.
Not one shred of positive evidence for the belief that all living organisms owe their collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms via an accumulation of genetic accidents.
I have stated that evolution can make proper predictions.
You may have said it yet you have failed to produce any predictions based on an accumulation of genetic accidents.
IOW you lie.
So, you don't talk about CSI at all. Why then do you talk about it here? If it really is a simple, basic building block of ID, then you should really introduce the concept to the high school students.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you could give us a transcript of your talk.... Remember to define CSI...so the kids know what the concept is.
Remember to work an example of determining the CSI of a real biological organism...so the kids know how to apply it.
Thanks for educating our students in a clear and straight-forward manner.
Not one shred of positive evidence for the belief that all living organisms owe their collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms via an accumulation of genetic accidents.
ReplyDeleteApart from the fact that things reproduce and that offspring are genetically different?
You may have said it yet you have failed to produce any predictions based on an accumulation of genetic accidents.
I'll bite. When certain E. coli strains have the plasmid pAF300 inserted, one can predict that chloramphenicol resistance will develop due the insertion of the IS10R element upstream of the pAF300-borne promoterless cam gene.
Now, I would dearly LOVE for you to say what you THINK should be predicted.
Not one shred of positive evidence for the belief that all living organisms owe their collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms via an accumulation of genetic accidents.
ReplyDeleteApart from the fact that things reproduce and that offspring are genetically different?
That is not evidence for Common Descent and it isn't evidence for an accumulation of genetic accidents.
IOW thanks for proving that you are a clueless dolt and a liar.
You may have said it yet you have failed to produce any predictions based on an accumulation of genetic accidents.
I'll bite. When certain E. coli strains have the plasmid pAF300 inserted, one can predict that chloramphenicol resistance will develop due the insertion of the IS10R element upstream of the pAF300-borne promoterless cam gene.
Again absolutely nothing to do with an accumulation of genetic accidents.
IOW Hawks you are proving tat your position is unsupportable.
Thank you.
When you discuss ID with students, how do you present CSI?
ReplyDeleteThe proper way.
So, you don't talk about CSI at all.
So you are an ignorant piece of shit no-nuthin' clown.
Why do you think your ignoranct badgering is meaningful discourse?
Again assface if you want to know more from me then just tell me when you are in New Hampshire and where you will be staying.
But you won't because you are a coward.
Thanks for the laughs but I have had my fill...
This is great not one evolutionotwit can support their position with positive evidence and all they can do is to ignorantly flail away at ID.
ReplyDeleteAnother prediction fulfilled...
That is not evidence for Common Descent and it isn't evidence for an accumulation of genetic accidents.
ReplyDeleteSure it is. You know, Joe, evidence doesn't have to show something deductively in order for it to be considered evidence. One piece of evidence doesn't have have to be the totality of the evidence. But, do enlighten us: What sort of predictions would you consider proper predictions?
That is not evidence for Common Descent and it isn't evidence for an accumulation of genetic accidents.
ReplyDeleteSure it is.
Liar.
Joe, evidence doesn't have to show something deductively in order for it to be considered evidence.
Obtuse gibberish.
No surprise there.
One piece of evidence doesn't have have to be the totality of the evidence.
And the evidence you presented has nothing to do with supporting evolutionism.
As a matter of fact it fits in perfectly with baraminology.
Does the proper way involve crayon drawings and poopy jokes?
ReplyDeleteCome on, Joe. Even you have to see how unbelievably lame your comments are:
Someone: Joe, what is 4 + 7?
JoeTard: a number
Someone: Joe, What is the content of your high school talks about ID?
JoeTard: Words.
Someone: Joe, calculate the CSI of a baseball for us so that we may learn how to properly apply ID concepts and help to forward the cause.
JoeTard: Suck my balls because you can't count.
Really, it's a wonder to behold.
No Erik, your comments are unbelievable.
ReplyDeleteYou have never demonstrated an understanding of science.
You have never demonstrated an understanding of ID.
You have never demonstrated an understanding of anything I post.
All you can do is badger me with your willful ignorance.
And yes that is a wonder to behold.
However you have helped me make my case so thanks...
Erik Prattard:
ReplyDelete"If I can ask ignorant and irrelevant questions that prove I am an ignorant asshole, then that shows Joe G doesn't know what he is talking about."
Yup that be evotard thinkin' fer ya...
No, Joe. The goal is funny. You have to be funny. I'm still offering free classes. I'll even give you a free 2 hour class at your home, if you're interested. Or, I can recommend someone in your neck of the woods (you do understand that phrase, right?).
ReplyDeleteOK cowardly Prattard.
ReplyDeleteJust tell me when you are in New Hampshire and where you are staying.
However your idea of funny means acting like a complete retard, but I am still interested.
Erik,
ReplyDeleteThere is no way you are coming near my house- I have kids and there are many kids in the neighborhood.
And Prattard, I wasn't being funny when I posted:
ReplyDeleteErik Prattard:
"If I can ask ignorant and irrelevant questions that prove I am an ignorant asshole, then that shows Joe G doesn't know what he is talking about."
That is the sad and pathetic reality of your existence.
True some people may find that reality a tad funny, but in a sad kind of way I'm sure.
So, Joe thinks that evidence is obtuse gibberish. No surprise there.
ReplyDeleteNeither were you showing any comprehension of dialogue... Take the class, Joe.
ReplyDeleteJoe, evidence doesn't have to show something deductively in order for it to be considered evidence.
ReplyDeleteObtuse gibberish.
No surprise there.
So, Joe thinks that evidence is obtuse gibberish.
Wrong again Hawks, as usual.
Ya see it is what you said that is obtuse gibberish and you still haven't provided any positive evidence for your position.
That is unless your position is that of an intellectual coward and then you have that covered.
bliptard,
ReplyDeleteYou never show any comprehension of anything.
And I would take the class except that you are too big of a coward to meet me.
So you are too big of a coward to meet me, you are too big of an intellectual coward to support your position and you are too stupid to understand what I post.
IOW you are a piece of shit- IOW you are South Park's Mr Hankey.
And I would take the class except that you are too big of a coward to meet me.
ReplyDeleteSo you are too big of a coward to meet me,
FYI Joe, few things in the world make you look like a bigger dick than making veiled threats of physical violence against an unreachable opponent on the web, Mr. Internet Tough Guy.
Thorton,
ReplyDeleteNothing could make you look like a bigger dick.
Clownie said he is coming to my house to teach me something- he is going to give me lessons.
He would come to my house.
Heck he has bragged about the fact that he went to Texas and called DaveScot to meet him.
He says Dave chickened out.
Now I have kids so clownie is not allowed near my house because of that.
So I will meet him at his hotel.
I was just ponting out the impossibility of that scenario.
And if you have an issue with me then perhaps you would like to meet to discuss it.
I will gladly take this off of the internet, Mr Cowardly Wanker.
What you obviously don't realize is that it is you punks who are belligerent.
Your posts bear that out.
I am just responding in the only manner belligerent punks can understand.
Deal with it.
Joke: And if you have an issue with me then perhaps you would like to meet to discuss it.
ReplyDeleteI will gladly take this off of the internet, Mr Cowardly Wanker.
LOL!
Internet Tough Guy: Somebody who frequents internet message boards and chat rooms and tries to project an image of being a badass. Typical internet tough guy behavior may include:
- Claims to be a master of any number of martial arts styles.
- Claims to be incredibly strong and physically fit.
- Threatens violence against other message board members or chat room users who anger or annoy him.
- May claim to an ex-Marine, ex-Special Forces, or gangsta.
- Makes exaggerated claims about his own sexual prowess and ability to seduce women.
Most internet tough guys are liars, and are actually angry, socially-awkward young males who use the internet as a place to act tough because they can't pull it off in real life.
Speaking of being a spineless coward, why did you run away from posting at ATBC where you can't censor / control the responses?
Thorton you are a little faggot.
ReplyDeleteI am not a tough guy.
I am one person standing up to a bunch of belligerent faggots- like you.
As for atbc no one there can support their position and they change the words to my posts.
All we have at atbc is more belligerent faggots.
I have enough here.
IOW the people in charge there are just as spineless as you are.
belligerent interenet faggot:
ReplyDeleteSomebody who frequents internet message boards and chat rooms and spews their ignorance all the while acting like they know soemthing.
They badger people with their ignorance and act as if their ignorance is meaningful discourse.
They will never try to support their position but will needle their opponents with irrelevant nonsense.
They will claim victory when said nonsense goes unanswered.
All belligerent interent faggots are liars, losers, poseurs and most likely still live with their momma- yes they are momma's boys.
The belligerent internet faggots who have posted here include Thorton, Richtard Hughes, Erik Pratt, Zachriel, Hawks- well the list goes on and on...
Ya see it is what you said that is obtuse gibberish and you still haven't provided any positive evidence for your position.
ReplyDeleteAre you too stupid to use Google?
Are you too stupid to use Google?
ReplyDeleteGoogle can't help you.
There isn't any positive evidence for your position for Google to find.
Joke: Google can't help you.
ReplyDeleteThere isn't any positive evidence for your position for Google to find.
Here Joke, try here
Thorton,
ReplyDeleteEvolution is not being debated you freaking moron.
IOW once again you prove my point.
Please Google for evidence for the following:
Evolutionism is the belief that all living organisms owe their collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms via an accumulation of genetic accidents.
IOW as the current theory of evolution is understood is "evolutionism"*.
The problem with evolutionism is that there isn't any positive evidence to support it.
All evolutionitwits have is to ignorantly attack ID and IDists.
Why is that?
*Now if anyone doubts that I will gladly discuss it with you
Or are you still too much of a dishonest belligerent internet faggot to understand English?
Thorton is too stupid and obtuse to undersatnd the following:
ReplyDeleteIn October 2007 I posted a piece I called Equivocation and Evolution, to highlight the blatant misrepresentation that evolutionists use in order to deceive anyone reading their comments.
This equivocation has now filtered into mechanisms- so called evolutionary mechanisms.
1. As I have pointed out many times, evolution is not being debated.
2. Evolutionary mechanisms could very well be telic- ie designed, as in designed to evolve, with genetic accidents being a small part of the scenario. See Dr Spetner's Not By Chance
And finally, as has been pointed out at least several thousand times, not one of the evolutionary mechanisms, nor any combination, has been demonstrated to do anything except provide slight, oscillating variations in an existing population.
Note: Page 67 of “The Edge of Evolution” Dr Behe has Table 4.1- Varieties of DNA Mutations- substitution, deletion, insertion, inversion, gene duplication, genome duplication. IOW those evolutionary mechanisms are not ignored.