Intelligent Reasoning

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

Friday, October 15, 2010

A Non-Designed Universe?

-
blipey the badgering clown wants me to describe a non-designed universe.

But how can I describe something that couldn't exist?

The point is a non-designed universe wouldn't have any laws. And without any laws what can you possibly get?

So if you can get such a thing started I would expect a totally chaotic universe, with things popping in and out of existence, for me that would be evidence for a non-designed universe.

blipey, OTOH, has claimed this universe is non-designed.

Yet he has offered nothing to support that claim.

But that is typical of his ilk- baldly claim what you have no chance of supporting.

In contrast IDists have provided plenty of data demonstrating a strong indication this universe was designed, and designed for (scientific) discovery.

posted by Joe G @ 8:41 PM  

79 Comments:

  • At 9:05 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    JoeTard: "But how can I describe something that couldn't exist?"

    In regard to a non-designed universe. Assuming our conclusions a little?

     

  • At 9:07 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    JoeTard: "So if you can get such a thing started I would expect a totally chaotic universe, with things popping in and out of existence, for me that would be evidence for a non-designed universe."

    I've bolded the relevant part. I take it vacuum energy proves a non-designed universe. Case closed.

    Thanks for finally coming around, Joe.

     

  • At 9:42 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "But how can I describe something that couldn't exist?"

    Erik the fagtard:
    In regard to a non-designed universe. Assuming our conclusions a little?

    Nope.

    "So if you can get such a thing started I would expect a totally chaotic universe, with things popping in and out of existence, for me that would be evidence for a non-designed universe."

    Erik the fagtard:
    I've bolded the relevant part.

    The whole thing is relevant.

    Erik the fagtard:
    I take it vacuum energy proves a non-designed universe.

    I take it you don't understand vacuum energy.

     

  • At 9:53 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    For Erik the fagtard:

    Cosmic Accidents Are Not Scientific Explanations

     

  • At 9:56 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Vaccum energy is a consequence of the uncertainty principle. It is the spontaneous creation of virtual particles (in matter and anti-matter pairs) and it is a detectable phenomenon.

    I take it that you now want to say that you didn't mean what you said and that things popping in and out of existence aren't really, FOR YOU, evidence of a non-designed universe?

    Way to backtrack, Joe. You didn't even try the "Child Molester Defense." You must have really screwed the pooch this time.

     

  • At 9:57 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    What are you calling an accident? If you're going to use that as an argument you need to be clear. Are you saying that vacuum energy is an accident?

     

  • At 10:02 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik the fagtard:
    Vaccum energy is a consequence of the uncertainty principle. It is the spontaneous creation of virtual particles (in matter and anti-matter pairs) and it is a detectable phenomenon.

    Yes I know.

    Erik the fagtard:
    I take it that you now want to say that you didn't mean what you said and that things popping in and out of existence aren't really, FOR YOU, evidence of a non-designed universe?

    Virtual particles aren't "things".

    But I can see that grasping is all you have.

    And that was not the only criteria:

    So if you can get such a thing started I would expect a totally chaotic universe, with things popping in and out of existence, for me that would be evidence for a non-designed universe."

    IOW all you are doing is proving my point- that you are an ignorant asshole.

     

  • At 10:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik the fagtard:
    What are you calling an accident?

    Everything in a non-designed universe would be an accident.

    Not planned- geez buy a freaking dictionary.

    IOW Erik your position is unscientific.

     

  • At 10:04 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Sure they are, Joe. They exist and the cause detectable phenomena in our universe. By your own admission, this universe shows excellent signs of being non-designed.

    If you disagree, please define "thing" as regards your argument.

     

  • At 10:05 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Nice. There are no accidents because the universe is designed. The universe is designed because there are no accidents. Easy.

     

  • At 10:07 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The point is a non-designed universe wouldn't have any laws. And without any laws what can you possibly get?

    So if you can get such a thing started I would expect a totally chaotic universe, with things popping in and out of existence, for me that would be evidence for a non-designed universe.

    Erik the fagtard position's explanation for the laws that govern our universe?- "they just are the way they are"- Stephen Hawking

    Are you kidding me?

    And that passes for science?

     

  • At 10:08 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Define "things".

     

  • At 10:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik the Fagtard:
    There are no accidents because the universe is designed.

    I never said a designed universe doesn't have any accidents in it.

    Are that fucking twisted?

    Oh never mind of course you are.

     

  • At 10:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik the Fagtrad:
    By your own admission, this universe shows excellent signs of being non-designed.

    Not even close- YOU don't get to chop up what I said and then use that quote-mine to do something.

    So try again:

    So if you can get such a thing started I would expect a totally chaotic universe, with things popping in and out of existence, for me that would be evidence for a non-designed universe.

     

  • At 10:12 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik the fagtard:
    Define "things".

    Don't need to.

    Ya see assface you chopped up what I said and used the chopped up part for a quote-mine.

     

  • At 10:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Define a non-designed universe.

     

  • At 10:14 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    You said things popping in and out of existence would suggest a non-designed universe.

    You were given an example of things that pop in and out of existence.

    You said that they are not things, but gave no reason why. In order to continue, you need to:

    Define "things".

     

  • At 10:15 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Remember, all you need to do is speak under oath. Nothing else is necessary. Oh, just because you'll be distracted by the previous sentence:

    Define "things".

     

  • At 10:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik the fagtard:
    You said things popping in and out of existence would suggest a non-designed universe.

    I said:

    So if you can get such a thing started I would expect a totally chaotic universe, with things popping in and out of existence, for me that would be evidence for a non-designed universe.

    IOW you are proving that you are an asshole.

    things- all definitions apply.

    So have at it...

     

  • At 10:18 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik the fagtard:
    Remember, all you need to do is speak under oath.

    Yes I know.

    But the best part will be when the evotards have to speak under oath.

    That is when I will prove that they are oafs.

    And then nothing else will be necessary.

    Also you need to buy a dictionary...

     

  • At 10:20 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    From Joe's definition of "things":

    "anything that is or may become an object of thought"

    Well, virtual particles have been thought of so I guess they're things.

    I guess the universe is non-designed.

     

  • At 10:22 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik the fagtard:
    You were given an example of things that pop in and out of existence.

    Except that ain't what happens.

    Matter and anti-matter destroy each other and don't get to pop back.

    IOW there isn't any popping in and out- once out it ain't coming back.

    Loser...

     

  • At 10:23 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik the fagtard- ALL DEFINITIONS APPLY NOT JUST THE ONE YOU WANT TO USE.

     

  • At 10:27 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So you're saying that the phrase "pop in and out of existence" requires that the exact same thing pop in and out of existence?

    Say, if Frank Sinatra popped into existence and then popped out, the exact same Frank Sinatra (with all atoms exactly the same, would have to pop into existence later or it doesn't count?

    The following sequence would not constitute "things popping in and out of existence"?:

    1. A 1977 Firebird pops in
    2. the 1977 Firebird pops out
    3. a banana pops in
    4. the banana pops out
    5. a quasar pops in
    6. the quasar pops out
    7. (and they turn themselves about)

    that would not be "things popping in and out of existence"?

    Truly dumbfounding.

     

  • At 10:29 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, a "cat" is not a thing?

    Due to number 9, "an article of clothing"

    Mysteriouser and mysteriouser....

     

  • At 10:37 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik the fagtard:
    So, a "cat" is not a thing?

    Due to number 9, "an article of clothing"

    A cat is a thing- please show us cats and clothing popping in and out of existence.

     

  • At 10:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik the fagtard:
    So you're saying that the phrase "pop in and out of existence" requires that the exact same thing pop in and out of existence?

    The phrase you are quote-mining and twisting is:

    with things popping in and out of existence

    So yes that would be the same things doing it continually- well more than once.

    Also even with your example the energy stays so nothing really pops out.

    And yes you are truly dumb- that is what I have found...

     

  • At 10:41 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Define a non-designed universe

     

  • At 10:48 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    According to your requirement that a "thing" is all definitions, a cat is not a thing, Joe.

    A cat is not an article of clothing.

    If you're stating that a cat is a thing because it meets (at least 1) definition, then virtual particles are also things by the same criterion.

     

  • At 10:56 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Other things(?) that a cat is:

    describable; not a state of being or circumstance; not an action, aim or task.

    So, besides 9, a cat isn't 4,5,6,8, or 11 either.

    Boy a cat sure doesn't come close to meeting all the definitions of a "thing" but you a cat is a thing anyway? Hmmmm.

     

  • At 8:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik the fagtard:
    According to your requirement that a "thing" is all definitions, a cat is not a thing, Joe.

    No- I said all the definitions apply on that page I provided a link to.

    And a cat fits at least one of those definitions you ignorant fuck.

    Erik the fagtard:
    A cat is not an article of clothing.

    I never said nor implied it was.

    Erik the fagtard:
    If you're stating that a cat is a thing because it meets (at least 1) definition, then virtual particles are also things by the same criterion.

    Right but I said ALL definitions appply- that means you have to find something that fits each definition- not something that fits only one.

    IOW you need things from multiple categories.

    And that STILL won't matter unless you can also match the other part of my qualifying statement.

     

  • At 8:44 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik the fagtard:
    Other things(?) that a cat is:

    describable; not a state of being or circumstance; not an action, aim or task.

    So, besides 9, a cat isn't 4,5,6,8, or 11 either.

    Boy a cat sure doesn't come close to meeting all the definitions of a "thing" but you a cat is a thing anyway? Hmmmm.

    So you really do think that if you act like an ignorant asshole that you can refute someone's argument.

    Unfortunately you ain't acting...

     

  • At 8:44 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Define a non-designed universe.

     

  • At 3:46 PM, Blogger Forthekids said…

    L.M.F.A.O!

     

  • At 6:19 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe. A a virtual particle is a thing according to some (but not all) of the definitions on the page.

    A cat is a thing according to some (but not all) of the definitions on the page.

    Either both cats and virtual particles are things or neither are. You can't have it both ways.

    P.S. What's your take, FTK? Are cats things? What about virtual particles? What about Joe's tap dancing; is that a thing?

     

  • At 8:42 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik:
    Joe. A a virtual particle is a thing according to some (but not all) of the definitions on the page.

    OK.

    Erik:
    A cat is a thing according to some (but not all) of the definitions on the page.

    OK

    Erik:
    Either both cats and virtual particles are things or neither are. You can't have it both ways.

    OK.

    So the problem must be YOU.

    YOU are so fucked up you just cannot grasp what I said.

    And even when you take what I said in an out-of-context quote-mine you STILL can't use it against me.

    With vacuum energy virtual particles do not pop in and out of existence.

    IOW even in your twisted little world, you lose.

    And it is obvious that FTK finds that very freakin' funny.

     

  • At 9:44 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Wait. Now you agree with me? First you say virtual particles aren't things. Now they are? You are unbelievable.

    I'll pencil you in for virtual particles are things now (I guess). You change your mind too much to keep up with.

     

  • At 10:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL!

    Erik just give up.

    You don't have an argument- all you can do is try to butcher what I post.

     

  • At 10:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hint- does a virtual particle meet every definition of a thing?

    If you can't find one thing that fits every definition then you have to find several things that fit one/ more than one until you have them all covered.

    So with that in your little bitty mind:

    The point is a non-designed universe wouldn't have any laws. And without any laws what can you possibly get?

    So if you can get such a thing started I would expect a totally chaotic universe, with things popping in and out of existence, for me that would be evidence for a non-designed universe.

     

  • At 11:37 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe, does a cat meet every definition?

     

  • At 8:33 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Do cats pop in and out of existence?

    If not then what difference does it make?

    Or are you admitting that even after explaining it to you as if you were a 1st grader, you STILL don't understand what I posted?

     

  • At 8:33 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Define a non-designed universe.

     

  • At 12:21 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe. Try to stick to the question at hand.

    You said a virtual particle is not a thing because it doesn't meet every dictionary definition of thing.

    You said a cat is a thing even though it was pointed out to you that it doesn't meet every dictionary definition of thing.

    This exposes your requirement of meeting every definition as a fallacious.

    Try to reconcile this. You cannot have it both ways.

     

  • At 12:36 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    Joe. Try to stick to the question at hand.

    Fuck you asshole.

    How about YOU try to stick to MY argument as opposed to twisting it to suit your needs?

    blipey:
    You said a virtual particle is not a thing because it doesn't meet every dictionary definition of thing.

    It doesn't meet my criteria.

    Ya see asshole virtual particles do not pop in and out of existence.

    blipey:
    You said a cat is a thing even though it was pointed out to you that it doesn't meet every dictionary definition of thing.

    And corrected your ignorance.

    Go figre.

    So you ae saying you ignored what i said hen I corrected you and are now just babbling incoherently.

    Got it.

    blipey:
    This exposes your requirement of meeting every definition as a fallacious.

    I explained that also.

    So tell me why is it that you think that if you act like an immature asshole that you ca refute what I post?

    Answer that question or fuck off.

     

  • At 12:41 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Define a non-designed universe

     

  • At 1:43 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Why is a cat a thing, Joe?

     

  • At 1:49 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe: "If you can't find one thing that fits every definition then you have to find several things that fit one/ more than one until you have them all covered."

    If that is your explanation of why a cat is a thing, you're just babbling. That paragraph is meaningless. That does nothing to explain why a (or anything else) is a thing.

     

  • At 2:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    Why is a cat a thing, Joe?

    Because it fits at least one definition of a thing.

    "If you can't find one thing that fits every definition then you have to find several things that fit one/ more than one until you have them all covered."

    blipey:
    If that is your explanation of why a cat is a thing, you're just babbling.

    LoL!

    What a complete imbecile!

    TRhat was my explanation of what yo need to provide in order to satify that one criteria of a non-designed universe.

    IOW thanks fo continuing to prove that you have the IQ of rock.

     

  • At 2:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So tell me why is it that you think that if you act like an immature asshole that you can refute what I post?

     

  • At 2:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Define a non-designed universe.

     

  • At 11:04 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    blipey: Why is a cat a thing, Joe?

    JoeTard: because it fits at least one definition of a thing.

    blipey: a virtual particle fits at least one definition of a thing

    JoeTard: a virtual particle is not a thing

    blipey: why?

    JoeTard: because a thing has to fit every definition of a thing.

    blipey: well, then a cat is not a thing.

    JoeTard: yes it is.

    And that sums up IDiot logic about as succinctly as it is possible to do. And IDiots wonder why they can't win a court case.

     

  • At 3:22 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Wow Erik the fagtard cannot folow what I said and instead throws a little girly hissy-fit.

    Erik the fagtard:
    a virtual particle fits at least one definition of a thing

    So what?

    They STILL don't pop in and out of existence.

    And that is only ONE class of "THINGS".

    I specifically said THINGS:

    The point is a non-designed universe wouldn't have any laws. And without any laws what can you possibly get?

    So if you can get such a thing started I would expect a totally chaotic universe, with things popping in and out of existence, for me that would be evidence for a non-designed universe.

    So as I said you need to find at least one thing that matches all the definitions of "thing" OR you find at least from each definition.

    YOU HAVE TO COVER ALL OF THE DEFINITIONS OF THINGS IF YOU WANT TO REFUTE WHAT I SAID.

     

  • At 12:18 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe, stop. You said that a virtual particle was not a thing. That is what we're talking about. You now seem to want to say that a virtual particle is a thing and move on. You cannot have it both ways.

    You said that a virtual particle was not a thing. In fact, you said this about virtual particles:

    1. "Virtual particles aren't "things"."

    Not much wiggle room there.

    Do you now want to reconsider?

     

  • At 7:10 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik stop.

    I explained everything.

    Just because you are too stupid to understand that explanation means nothing to me.

    So eat shit fuckwad.

     

  • At 9:51 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    No explanation necessary, Joe.

    First, you said that virtual particle are not things. There was no other context to this statement. You said that my argument regarding vacuum energy was incorrect because "VIRTUAL PARTICLES ARE NOT THINGS".

    Now, you wan to say something else entirely. Now you claim that virtual particles are indeed things, but that's not why my argument is wrong, even though that contradicts what you said earlier.

    You cannot have it both ways.

     

  • At 10:08 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    No explanation necessary, Joe.

    OK then fuck off.

    To sum up:

    Erik quote-mines me (out of context) and sez vacuum energy is evidence for a non-designed universe.

    However even virtual particles do not pop in and out of existence.

    So now Erk throws a little girly hissy-fit.

    For example:

    You said that my argument regarding vacuum energy was incorrect because "VIRTUAL PARTICLES ARE NOT THINGS".

    And I explained that- but now you say no explanation necessary.

    IOW you are a complete fucking loser.

    Now, you wan to say something else entirely. Now you claim that virtual particles are indeed things, but that's not why my argument is wrong, even though that contradicts what you said earlier.

    Not so and I have explained taht also.

    Apparently you are just too fucking stupid to understand anything.

     

  • At 11:10 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe, you said that virtual particles are not things. Do you want to change your mind?

    Virtual particles are things, yes or no?

     

  • At 11:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    Joe, you said that virtual particles are not things.

    And I explained myself.

    Apparently you are too stupid to understand that explanation.

    So now all you can do is throw a little girly hissy-fit.

    Sweet...

     

  • At 11:20 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Yes or no. You have claimed both. Are virtual particles things? Too scared to answer straight up?

    Yes or no?

     

  • At 11:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I have already explained myself and now I am finished with this topic.

     

  • At 11:27 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Right. You're final word is that "cats" are things because they adhere to at least one definition and that "virtual particles" are not things because they don't adhere to all definitions.

    Please take that to court. Are you sure that's where you want to leave your position? That's untenable even to the remarkably stupid.

     

  • At 11:31 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Wrong- as usual.

    That you would even say such a thing proves that you are too stupid to understand what I explained.

    It is not my problem that you are a fucking loser who is forced to quote-mine and then get caught when that quote-mine backfires.

     

  • At 11:38 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe: "virtual particles are not things."

    Joe: "ALL DEFINITIONS APPLY NOT JUST THE ONE YOU WANT TO USE." (regarding virtual particles)

    Exactly as I said. Joe claims that virtual particles are not things because he requires that all definitions of thing apply.

    Joe: "A cat is a thing- please show us cats and clothing popping in and out of existence.

    -bolding mine

    Joe: "And a cat fits at least one of those definitions you ignorant fuck."

    Exactly as I said. Joe only requires a cat to meet one definition to be a thing. For some reason he does not apply this rule to other "stuff" (I'd say "things" but Joe wouldn't know what I was talking about.).

     

  • At 11:59 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So blipey thinks he can quote-mine me again:

    Joe claims that virtual particles are not things because he requires that all definitions of thing apply.

    Not what I said.

    IOW you are happy to prove that you are an ignorant and imbecilic fuck.

    Thanks, but I didn't need any more proof of that...

     

  • At 12:25 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    That is exactly what you said, Joe. I didn't delete anything from your statements; I included everything you wrote.

    1. You told me that virtual particles are not things and provided a set of dictionary definitions.

    2. I read your definitions and said that virtual particles are things according to one of the definitions "anything that is or may become an object of thought".

    3. You said that virtual particles are not things because "ALL DEFINITIONS APPLY NOT JUST THE ONE YOU WANT TO USE."

    This is your entire comment.

    4. I said that a cat is not a thing according to your requirement of matching every definition because "a cat is not an article of clothing" (one of the definitions given).

    5. You said that a cat is a thing because "And a cat fits at least one of those definitions you ignorant fuck."

    That is your complete argument in the comment regarding the "thing-ness" of cats.

    If you would like to rethink your position on the "thing-ness" of virtual particles we can move on to the very dubious discussion you would like to have: namely, that virtual particles (and only virtual particles) must meet every definition in order to be used in the "popping in and out of existence" argument.

    However, we cannot move on to that argument until you state clearly your position on the "thing-ness" of virtual particles. If you cannot state your position on what a thing is, all future discussions resting at least in part on "things" will be useless.

    I know what you want to discuss, but until you tell us what things are, it is of no use.

    How about it? Virtual particles. Things, yes or no?

     

  • At 12:51 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    That is exactly what you said, Joe. I didn't delete anything from your statements; I included everything you wrote.

    You are a lying son of a bitch.

    Your second post started with the quote-mine.

    IOWyou are very sick and should seek help- or come to NH and I will take care of it.

     

  • At 2:30 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Still not sure what things are? Here's a hypothetical:

    If someone comes up to you and says, "Hey, there are some things missing here.", do you automatically think that they are not talking about cats?

     

  • At 3:07 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Something is missing from your head- sorry, you can't be missing what you never had- a brain.

     

  • At 3:09 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Sofas? Are they things? How about zebras? Oxygen molecules? Paint? Colors?

    Oh yeah, and...

    Virtual particles?

    Things?

     

  • At 3:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What?

    I can't hear you.

    Please speak up.

     

  • At 4:15 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    And what about "things"? Are "things" "things"?

    Why can't you decide? This question is not very difficult.

     

  • At 4:25 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What?

    You put things up your ass and have Richie suck them out?

    Hopefully he gives you an enema beforehand.

     

  • At 5:24 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     

  • At 6:12 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Wow- comments popping in and out of my blog!

     

  • At 9:20 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     

  • At 7:42 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Pop goes the com-ment...

    LoL!!!!

     

  • At 8:58 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     

  • At 1:19 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     

  • At 7:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What was that?

     

Post a Comment

<< Home