Reciprocating Bill's "logic" the theory of evolution is devoid of content= empty
-
Reciprocating Bill has said that unless ID can describe the agency/ agencies responsible for the design, then saying design is a mechanism is devoid of content = empty. That is because design being a mechanism entails and agency/ agencies.
He never supports his claim- it is just his say-so.
However if we apply this "logic" to the theory of evolution we can easily see that it is devoid of content = empty because the ToE entails the origin of living organisms. So without a description of how that happened that means the ToE is devoid of content = empty. Ya see according to Bill's "logic" a description of the OoL is the only way to cash out the ToE's proposed mechanisms.
Thanks Bill- I am sure you will be writing to science journals explaining your break-through.
Reciprocating Bill has said that unless ID can describe the agency/ agencies responsible for the design, then saying design is a mechanism is devoid of content = empty. That is because design being a mechanism entails and agency/ agencies.
He never supports his claim- it is just his say-so.
However if we apply this "logic" to the theory of evolution we can easily see that it is devoid of content = empty because the ToE entails the origin of living organisms. So without a description of how that happened that means the ToE is devoid of content = empty. Ya see according to Bill's "logic" a description of the OoL is the only way to cash out the ToE's proposed mechanisms.
Thanks Bill- I am sure you will be writing to science journals explaining your break-through.
posted by Joe G @ 7:46 AM
109 Comments:
At 12:34 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Evolution explains diversity of species, Abiogenesis describes the start of life, ID describes neither
At 12:56 PM,
Joe G said…
ich, according to Bill evolution's "explanation" is devoid of content = empty because A) you cannot have evolution, ie the diversity of living organisms, without the origins of living organisms. And seeing we cannot describe the OoL then evolution is devoid of content = empty.
What the fuck can't you follow along?
Also ID is about origins AND the diversity of species.
So you lose twice, in one post.
At 12:59 PM,
Reciprocating Bill said…
"Reciprocating Bill has said that unless ID can describe the agency/ agencies responsible for the design, then saying design is a mechanism is devoid of content = empty. That is because design being a mechanism entails and agency/ agencies...He never supports his claim- it is just his say-so."
It is not an empirical claim. It is a conceptual distinction. As you earlier agreed, ID's mechanisms entail agency by definition. Absent a description of the agent or agents in question, the mechanism ("agency") has no content, regardless of the events in question (ool versus the subsequent emergence of complexity and diversification, for example). Therefore the "mechanism" posited by ID theory remains empty vis events at all levels.
"However if we apply this "logic" to the theory of evolution we can easily see that it is devoid of content = empty because the ToE entails the origin of living organisms."
That doesn't follow. NS cannot account for the origin of the first replicators because it requires replicating organisms in order to occur. It doesn't follow that it is devoid of content relevant to the events that follow once replication is under way (i.e. the emergence of diversity and complexity). The opposite is manifestly true.
In short: NS as a mechanism is relevant to some phenomena in biology but not all, most notably the origin of replicating life. The ID "mechanism" as currently described remains empty at all levels. Therefore your analogy fails.
At 1:32 PM,
Joe G said…
R Bill:
It is not an empirical claim. It is a conceptual distinction.
You don't know what you are talking about Bill.
R Bill:
As you earlier agreed, ID's mechanisms entail agency by definition.
Right and the theory of evolution entail living organisms, which had an origin.
R Bill:
Absent a description of the agent or agents in question, the mechanism ("agency") has no content, regardless of the events in question (ool versus the subsequent emergence of complexity and diversification, for example).
So if you keep repeating your bald assertions they become self-supportive?
I asked you for a reference to supprt yur claim and you have failed to provide one. Therefor your claims are as empty as you claim ID's mecahnism of design is.
R Bill:
Therefore the "mechanism" posited by ID theory remains empty vis events at all levels.
Again it is just your say-so which is devoid of content = empty.
"However if we apply this "logic" to the theory of evolution we can easily see that it is devoid of content = empty because the ToE entails the origin of living organisms."
R Bill:
That doesn't follow.
Yes it does for the reasons provided.
R Bill:
NS cannot account for the origin of the first replicators because it requires replicating organisms in order to occur.
Blind, undirected chemical processes Bill. Stop getting hung up on NS.
R Bill:
It doesn't follow that it is devoid of content relevant to the events that follow once replication is under way (i.e. the emergence of diversity and complexity).
Blind, undirected chemical processes Bill- it is the same for both the OoL and its subsequent diversity.
R Bill:
In short: NS as a mechanism is relevant to some phenomena in biology but not all, most notably the origin of replicating life.
Except NS isn't a mechanism, it is a result.
R Bill:
The ID "mechanism" as currently described remains empty at all levels.
Why, because you say so?
Repeating your bullshit will not turn it into a rose.
Also targeted searches- one specific design mechanism- have empirical support.
You lose.
At 1:37 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Aren't "Blind, undirected chemical processes" ACTUALLY direced by various selection mechanisms?
I bet Bill can Bench 500 lbs, Joe.
At 2:56 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
Aren't "Blind, undirected chemical processes" ACTUALLY direced by various selection mechanisms?
Directed by whatever survives, survives?
What kind of direction does that provide?
Or is what you are saying devoid of content = empty?
At 2:59 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
I bet Bill can Bench 500 lbs, Joe.
It appears he has dropped at least that much on his head.
Is that what you are saying- that he fell off of a bench that had 500 lbs on it and it crushed his skull causing massive brain damage?
That was my guess! Hey I can read minds!!!!!!
At 3:02 PM,
Joe G said…
R Bill-
The fact that NS is not a mechanism is obvious once you consider it is the result of three processes, ie mechanisms- variation, heredity and differential reproduction.
At 3:07 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Directed by whatever survives (in certain environments, governed by certain pressures), survives.
At 3:16 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
Directed by whatever survives (in certain environments, governed by certain pressures), survives.
So it is wishy washy devoid of content = empty.
At 3:18 PM,
Joe G said…
BTW check out my new promo under the blog banner "Intelligent Reasoning"
At 3:19 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"So it is wishy washy devoid of content = empty."
Actually, it has MORE content then the original (Yours).
At 3:30 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
Actually, it has MORE content then the original (Yours).
And that is devoid of content = empty.
At 3:37 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"And that is devoid of content = empty."
Why offer it then? Do you specialize in making non-arguments?
Of course, it's not empty at all, it is a long debunked 'evolution is a tautology' trope:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
It is intersesting to see you copying the phrases that the big boys use. You do this often.
At 3:55 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
Actually, it has MORE content then the original (Yours).
And that is devoid of content = empty.
Rich:
Why offer it then? Do you specialize in making non-arguments?
No Rich, what you said is devoid of content = empty. That pretty much covers all your posts.
Rich:
Of course, it's not empty at all, it is a long debunked 'evolution is a tautology' trope:
Your position being devoid of content = empty has nothing to do with any tautology you twit. And referencing talk origins is just pure desperation.
Rich:
It is intersesting to see you copying the phrases that the big boys use. You do this often.
I call it mocking the morons with their own trope. :)
At 3:59 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich,
Natural selection is a result not a mechanism and as such does not belong in a discussion about mechanisms.
I have made that clear and yet you prattle on oblivious to your ineptitude.
At 4:01 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
Do you specialize in making non-arguments?
That is an evotard speciality- that and lying, misrepresenting, erecting strawman after strawman and pretending natural selection is a magical ratchet- not to be confused with a wascally wabbit..,.
At 4:23 PM,
Joe G said…
Oh no, I have another song in my head!
"Mock the trope
Yo mock the trope baby
Mock the trope
Yo tip the trope ovah"
At 4:27 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Grrrr. Your playground taunts have got me riled, Joe.
At 5:16 PM,
Joe G said…
Oh no- a Badfinger song:
"No matter who you tau-nt
I will always taunt you.
Doesn't matter what you do Rich, ewww Rich, taunt you"
"Knock on your basement door, just to taunt you some more.
Taunts every day. Taunts that you're gay. Taunts just for you."
Yeah baby....
At 5:28 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Fantastic- Dembski could use a lyricist.
At 5:47 PM,
Joe G said…
Would that be a paying gig?
At 6:01 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
That's between you and him and possibly "the Rembrandt of flash".
At 7:22 PM,
Reciprocating Bill said…
RTH:
"I bet Bill can Bench 500 lbs, Joe."
Well, I can certainly pound 500 benches.
Joe:
Agentic causation entails a description of several key dispositions that uniquely characterize agency, namely the beliefs, desires, intentions, and capabilities that are said to animate the agent. To supply a characterization in those terms is what it means to attribute an action to agency (versus other forms of causality). Absent those terms, there is no explanation.
Example: when we observe a man going over Niagara Falls in a barrel we inevitably wonder whether that the behavior is attributable to a desire for thrills, or a want of fame, or a wish for death, etc., coupled with the belief that such an action will bring that thrills, fame, or death. Were you to ask "why did he go over the falls," you would not be satisfied by "because the current pushed and gravity pulled the barrel over." Similarly, were we to learn that he accidentally fell into the barrel, we would no longer ascribe the action to the exercise of agency because the actions were not intentional. Absent those descriptive terms (beliefs, desires, intentions), there is no agentic explanation, because beliefs, desire, intention etc. are the "mechanisms" of agency (as well as the coin of folk psychology and, perhaps increasingly, folk biologies such as ID.)
So, what beliefs, desires, intentions, and capabilities do you ascribe to the agent you characterize as the explanatory "mechanism" of ID?
Absent those, your ascription of "agency" remains an empty placeholder.
At 10:22 PM,
Joe G said…
R Bill:
Agentic causation entails a description of several key dispositions that uniquely characterize agency, namely the beliefs, desires, intentions, and capabilities that are said to animate the agent.
Reference please.
1- If we knew the agency we wouldn't have a design inference, design would be a given.
2- Reality dictates tht in the absence of direct observation or deisgner input the only possible way to answer any of those questions is by studying the design in question.
3- We can make assumptions about the designer(s)- for example we can assume it/ he/ she/ they were/ are just as clever as we are and understand the power of a targeted search in a resource rich configuration space. That passes for the description you seek.
R Bill:
Example: when we observe a man going over Niagara Falls in a barrel we inevitably wonder whether that the behavior is attributable to a desire for thrills, or a want of fame, or a wish for death, etc., coupled with the belief that such an action will bring that thrills, fame, or death. Were you to ask "why did he go over the falls," you would not be satisfied by "because the current pushed and gravity pulled the barrel over."
I don't wonder any of that.
R Bill:
Similarly, were we to learn that he accidentally fell into the barrel, we would no longer ascribe the action to the exercise of agency because the actions were not intentional.
Right accidently fell into the barrel while trying to prevent someone else from going over- or did he/ she just happen upon a barrel sitting on the Niagra River that had an opening wide enough to fall into.
Perhaps aliens just accidently beamed him/ her there.
Perhaps you are just an imbecile that doesn't have a clue.
R Bill:
Absent those descriptive terms (beliefs, desires, intentions), there is no agentic explanation, because beliefs, desire, intention etc. are the "mechanisms" of agency (as well as the coin of folk psychology and, perhaps increasingly, folk biologies such as ID.)
Sometimes agency involvement is the best we can do and then we go from there. And we can determine intention etc. by the number of specified events that had to have happened to bring about the result.
R Bill:
So, what beliefs, desires, intentions, and capabilities do you ascribe to the agent you characterize as the explanatory "mechanism" of ID?
Well "The Privileged Planet" takes care o one purpose and the capabilities- well we can assume the designer(s) are/ were at least as clever as we are and understand teh power of a targeted search in a resource-rich configuration space.
So that is a start.
R Bill:
Absent those, your ascription of "agency" remains an empty placeholder.
Hey fuckhead you don't get to keep repeating your bullshit and using yourself as a reference.
And as I said assface by your logic your position is devoid of content = empty.
At 10:24 PM,
Joe G said…
Geez Richtard- the way you talk about Bill and tell us what he thinks I had it figured you were his agent or stroker or something really close.
Are you admitting that you are just another blowhard?
At 10:28 PM,
Joe G said…
So it is confirmed- you can't say I didn't give Bill an opportunity- by Reciprocating Bill's "logic" the theory of evolution is devoid of content = empty.
Ya see Bill attacking ID doesn't change the fact taht your position is devoid of content = empty.
I know in your wittle evotard mind you think it does, but it doesn't work that way.
At 11:02 PM,
Reciprocating Bill said…
Joe G:
" Reference please."
Here are a few:
Schueler, G. F. (2001). Action explanations: Causes and purposes. In B. F. Malle, L. J. Moses, & D. A. Baldwin (Eds.), Intentions and intentionality: Foundations of social cognition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Churchland, P. M. (1991). Folk Psychology and the explanation of human behavior. In J. D. Greenwood (Ed.), The future of folk psychology: Intentionality and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stich, S. (1996c). Intentionality and naturalism. In S. Stich (Ed.), Deconstructing the mind. New York: Oxford University Press.
The above elaborate the conceptual distinctions between ordinary causality and agency I have described.
Joe:
"We can make assumptions about the designer(s)- for example we can assume it/ he/ she/ they were/ are just as clever as we are and understand the power of a targeted search in a resource rich configuration space. That passes for the description you seek."
I wouldn't be satisfied with handful of assumptions tossed off ad hoc, but perhaps you are, and ID is.
"Sometimes agency involvement is the best we can do and then we go from there. And we can determine intention etc. by the number of specified events that had to have happened to bring about the result. "
OK. Please DO go from there. What have you determined regarding the intention etc. of your explanatory agent from the number of specified events that have been shown to bring about a result?
At 11:21 PM,
Joe G said…
R Bill:
The above elaborate the conceptual distinctions between ordinary causality and agency I have described.
You need them to say that we need to know everything about the designer before we can infer design is present and can study it.
R Bill:
I wouldn't be satisfied with handful of assumptions tossed off ad hoc, but perhaps you are, and ID is.
Nothing ad hoc about it. We go with what we know- that is how science operates.
And seeing that you are satisfied with the content-free theory of evolution you really don't have a foundation to build on.
"Sometimes agency involvement is the best we can do and then we go from there. And we can determine intention etc. by the number of specified events that had to have happened to bring about the result. "
R Bill:
OK. Please DO go from there.
Already have asshole even despite the lack of resources.
But nothing ID has will ever be to your satisfaction even though your position can only satisfy the wifully ignorant.
At 11:21 PM,
Joe G said…
So it is confirmed- you can't say I didn't give Bill an opportunity- by Reciprocating Bill's "logic" the theory of evolution is devoid of content = empty.
Ya see Bill attacking ID doesn't change the fact taht your position is devoid of content = empty.
I know in your wittle evotard mind you think it does, but it doesn't work that way.
At 11:56 PM,
Reciprocating Bill said…
Joe G:
"You need them to say that we need to know everything about the designer before we can infer design is present and can study it."
"Everything?" I'll be impressed if you can show that you know just ONE thing about the designer. Then your hypothesized mechanism would no longer be devoid of content. (Hint: ad hoc assumptions aren't knowledge).
"Already have asshole even despite the lack of resources."
Asshole must have missed it. Just what have you determined regarding the intention etc. of your explanatory agent from the number of specified events that have been shown to bring about a result?
At 2:35 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
"You need them to say that we need to know everything about the designer before we can infer design is present and can study it. "
Actually, there are no instances of ID without knowing the designer.
Clue - It was humans.
"Nothing ad hoc about it. We go with what we know- that is how science operates."
Actually you don't. You say not this, THEREFORE that. Which is going with what you DON'T know.
"And seeing that you are satisfied with the content-free theory of evolution you really don't have a foundation to build on."
14k papers this year?
At 8:28 AM,
Joe G said…
Richtard:
Actually, there are no instances of ID without knowing the designer.
There are plenty.
Richtard:
Clue - It was humans.
That is an assumption.
"Nothing ad hoc about it. We go with what we know- that is how science operates."
Richtard:
Actually you don't. You say not this, THEREFORE that.
Bullshit. The design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships and it can be tested and potentially falsified.
However it is obvious that your position being devoid of content is nothing more than saying "anything but design".
"And seeing that you are satisfied with the content-free theory of evolution you really don't have a foundation to build on."
Richtard:
14k papers this year?
And yet NOT ONE that demonstrates that an accumulation of genetic accidents, ie blind, undirected chemical processes, can CONSTRUCT a functional multi-part system.
Thanks for proving my point.
At 8:33 AM,
Joe G said…
R Bill:
"Everything?" I'll be impressed if you can show that you know just ONE thing about the designer.
It is obvious that the only thing you will accept is to meet the designer(s) and watch him/ her/ it/ them in action.
IOW you ain't interested in science.
R Bill:
Then your hypothesized mechanism would no longer be devoid of content.
Only evotards think it is devoid of content. And your logic demonstrates your position is devoid of content.
R Bill:
Just what have you determined regarding the intention etc. of your explanatory agent from the number of specified events that have been shown to bring about a result?
That our place in the cosmos was designed for discovery.
At 8:37 AM,
Joe G said…
Reciprocating Bill has said that unless ID can describe the agency/ agencies responsible for the design, then saying design is a mechanism is devoid of content = empty. That is because design being a mechanism entails and agency/ agencies.
He never supports his claim- it is just his say-so.
However if we apply this "logic" to the theory of evolution we can easily see that it is devoid of content = empty because the ToE entails the origin of living organisms. So without a description of how that happened that means the ToE is devoid of content = empty. Ya see according to Bill's "logic" a description of the OoL is the only way to cash out the ToE's proposed mechanisms.
Thanks Bill- I am sure you will be writing to science journals explaining your break-through.
At 9:53 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
"That our place in the cosmos was designed for discovery." - You're bringing in designer motives, Joe. We're not supposed to do that. Make up your mind. Do you know the designer or not?
At 9:57 AM,
Joe G said…
"That our place in the cosmos was designed for discovery."
Rich
- You're bringing in designer motives, Joe.
Yeah we can do that by going ove the evidence. Geez I have been telling you that for years.
Your willful ignorance is not a refutation Rich, even though you think it is.
At 10:03 AM,
Reciprocating Bill said…
Joe G:
"However if we apply this "logic" to the theory of evolution we can easily see that it is devoid of content = empty because the ToE entails the origin of living organisms."
As you rightly say, the mechanisms posited by contemporary evolutionary theory include heredity, variation and differential reproduction. Those mechanisms certainly "assume" replicating organisms, because replication is requisite for each of these factors.
However those mechanisms don't entail a particular origin for those replicators. Any origin will do. Replicating origins first established by a supernatural designer and then left alone would display heredity, variation and differential reproduction (selection) and, so the content of that model goes, display increasing complexity and diversity without further guidance. Therefore the theory of evolution does NOT itself entail the assertion that "blind" forces gave rise to the OOL.
Of course, naturalism DOES entail such a thing - clearly only an assumption at this date - and also entails the requirement that something like evolutionary theory is true for the history of organisms since the OOL. But the reverse does not hold: evolutionary theory does not require a natural OOL, and is in fact neutral with respect to the OOL.
Therefore the absence of a solution to the OOL has no bearing on the content of evolutionary theory.
At 10:16 AM,
Joe G said…
R Bill:
As you rightly say, the mechanisms posited by contemporary evolutionary theory include heredity, variation and differential reproduction.
Those mechanisms are posited by baraminology and ID.
The difference is the ToE posits the mechansims are blind, undirected chemical processes, ie an accumulation of genetic accidents.
R Bill:
However those mechanisms don't entail a particular origin for those replicators.
That is false- as I have told you already both the OoL and the ToE in your scenario posit blind, undirected chemical processes.
That you keep trying to change the subject just cements the claim that your position is devoid of content = empty.
R Bill:
But the reverse does not hold: evolutionary theory does not require a natural OOL, and is in fact neutral with respect to the OOL.
If living organisms did not arise from non-living matter via blind, undirected chemical processes then there would be no reason to infer the subsequent diversity was due solely to blind, undirected chemical processes:
The Origin of Life & Evolution- Why the Connection cannot be broken
R Bill:
Therefore the absence of a solution to the OOL has no bearing on the content of evolutionary theory.
Unfortunately for you it does fo all the reasons provided.
At 10:20 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Yeah we can do that by going ove the evidence."
No, your begging the question - your conclusion is also in your premise. If Y is designed for X then we see X, presupposes Y being designed.
At 10:22 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Also, I'd like to know more about the designer. He appears to like cockroaches and vacuum. Why is this?
At 10:26 AM,
Joe G said…
"Yeah we can do that by going ove the evidence."
Rich:
No, your begging the question - your conclusion is also in your premise.
No question begging and you don't have any evidence that the inference is also the premise.
Rich:
If Y is designed for X then we see X, presupposes Y being designed.
Just because you can post it doesn't mke it so.
Ya see we make an observation/ observations. From those observations we use our experience to guide us to an inference.
So the first inference is our place in the cosmos is designed.
Then we ask designed for what?
So we go back and examine all the evidence again so that we can try to answer that question.
But anyway Rich attacking ID with your ignorance is not going to change the fcat that your position is devoid of content = empty.
At 10:28 AM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
Also, I'd like to know more about the designer.
Good for you Rich. Unfortunately you have proven to be too stupid to assess the evidence so that you can find out more.
At 11:32 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
"we use our experience to guide us to an inference."
Our experience tells us the most creative things are Humans. Therefore Humans are the designer(s)!
I like this methodology, it's easy.
At 11:38 AM,
Joe G said…
"we use our experience to guide us to an inference."
Rich:
Our experience tells us the most creative things are Humans.
It has?
Our experience tells us that designing agencies can do things with nature that nature, operating freely cannot do.
Rich:
Therefore Humans are the designer(s)!
If we use your "logic" then humans designed stars, lightning, plants, animals, well just about everything- andthat is why you ain't a scientist, you are clueless.
At 11:42 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
"It has?"
Yes, we've never in our experience seen a more creative entity than mankind. If we have, name it.
" If we use your "logic" then humans designed stars, lightning, plants, animals, well just about everything- andthat is why you ain't a scientist, you are clueless. "
Ah but Joe, my "logic" is simply your "logic":
"we use our experience to guide us to an inference."
Would you like to change your mind yet?
At 11:48 AM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
Yes, we've never in our experience seen a more creative entity than mankind.
How would you know? You appear as ignorant as ignorant can be.
Rich:
Ah but Joe, my "logic" is simply your "logic":
Your "logic" is a twisted and demented form of my logic.
Rich:
Would you like to change your mind yet?
ope your posts have proven that your position is devoid of content = empty.
Thank you.
At 11:56 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
How would you know?
Based on "experience", apparently!
Once again I have proven you are totally wrong, understand nothing and have no argument*
*Not really, but I thought I'd try on one of you "Iraqi information minister" self-declared victory speeches on. I didn't like it. It was too childish for me.
At 12:04 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
Based on "experience", apparently!
Well we have bees that have figured out the traveling salesman dilemma. Something humans have not done.
IOW Rich your ignorance is not to be cionfused with experience.
At 12:06 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Well we have bees that have figured out the traveling salesman dilemma. Something humans have not done."
Oh link, please. This is a conversation you don't want to have.
At 12:47 PM,
oleg said…
Well, maybe some humans can't solve the traveling salesman problem with 5 nodes, but most of us can. With or without a computer.
At 3:12 PM,
Reciprocating Bill said…
Joe G:
"If living organisms did not arise from non-living matter via blind, undirected chemical processes then there would be no reason to infer the subsequent diversity was due solely to blind, undirected chemical processes."
Agents make choices, and one possible choice is to create and abandon. Hence the hypothesis that an intelligent agent originated life doesn't entail (require) that further intelligent intervention drove subsequent events.
Since you know absolutely zero about your posited agent you have no basis upon which to exclude or even evaluate such a possibility - demonstrating the emptiness and scientific uselessness of such agentic "mechanisms."
Hence the hypothesis that unguided processes account for subsequent diversity and complexity remains to be evaluated on it's own merits regardless of what mechanism for OOL one prefers.
At 5:25 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
This is a conversation you don't want to have.
I can't think of any conversation I want to have with you- you can't even understand simple English so communication is rather difficult.
At 5:26 PM,
Joe G said…
oleg:
Well, maybe some humans can't solve the traveling salesman problem with 5 nodes, but most of us can. With or without a computer.
Are you a drone, a worker or a queen?
At 5:35 PM,
Joe G said…
"If living organisms did not arise from non-living matter via blind, undirected chemical processes then there would be no reason to infer the subsequent diversity was due solely to blind, undirected chemical processes."
R Bill:
Agents make choices, and one possible choice is to create and abandon. Hence the hypothesis that an intelligent agent originated life doesn't entail (require) that further intelligent intervention drove subsequent events.
No shit. I have only been saying that for years.
R Bill:
Since you know absolutely zero about your posited agent you have no basis upon which to exclude or even evaluate such a possibility
That is only your say so and with very limited resources that isn't even on the agenda.
Ya see Bill as I keep telling you in the absence of direct observation or designer input the only possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer or the specific processes used is by studying the design in question.
And THEN we can try to figure out how- Stonehenge- first we had to be sure it was designed and then we set out to find out who and how.
And we still don't know.
R Bill:
demonstrating the emptiness and scientific uselessness of such agentic "mechanisms."
Where you see emptiness I see impetus. We form hypotheses and we test them and we have experience with the pwoer of a targeted search in a resource-rich configuration space.
R Bill:
Hence the hypothesis that unguided processes account for subsequent diversity and complexity remains to be evaluated on it's own merits regardless of what mechanism for OOL one prefers.
Not only is that total bullshit it is a non-sequitur.
At 5:42 PM,
Joe G said…
Richtard "logic":
Our experience tells us the most creative things are Humans.
And humans could not have created living organisms therefor we're just here because we are here.
ID Logic:
Our experience tells us the most creative things are Humans (even though we take many tips from other animals)
Humans could not have created living organisms.
Therefor some other entity at least as clever as humans did.
We infer this because of our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.
And to refute this inference all one has to do is remove the requirement for agemcy involvement- IOW actually produce positive evidence for your position. Negative attacks on ID- especially of the PRATT list type- will not help your position.
At 6:35 PM,
Reciprocating Bill said…
Joe G:
"...the only possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer or the specific processes used is by studying the design in question. And THEN we can try to figure out how."
I see. Step 2 hasn't occurred yet, so, as of this moment you know exactly zero about the "how" (or "why" in the instance of agency) of your agentic "mechanism." It remains an empty placeholder, awaiting your collective arrival step 2.
Which is what I've been saying all along.
At 6:41 PM,
Joe G said…
R Bill:
Step 2 hasn't occurred yet...
Perhaps not to your satisfaction but as I have said we have several possibilities, as I have been trying to explain.
Also as I have explained saying "design is a mechanism" is a placeholder, albeit not empty, just unknown. Ya see saying the mechanism was design means we have already eliminated blind, undirected (chemical) processes.
At 7:03 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Humans could not have created living organisms."
Why not? Venter has. The admission that ID's mechanism is completely empty and devoid of substance was good though. Well done!
Bees are way smarter than computers, eh? Who'd have thunk it.
At 7:19 PM,
Joe G said…
"Humans could not have created living organisms."
Rich:
Why not? Venter has.
No he hasn't. He took an existing organism, removed its DNA and placed his synthesized DNA in that cell.
Geez Rich do you know anything?
Rich:
The admission that ID's mechanism is completely empty and devoid of substance was good though.
It was almost as good as your prior admssions that the theory of evolution is completely empty and devoid of substance.
As a matter of fact everything you have posted has been completely empty void of substance.
You can't read a dictionary, you don't have a clue about information technology beyond you type and something happens, you can't support your position, you don't even seem to understand it, and you think if you attack ID with your willful ignorance you can somehow refute it.
Other than that you may be on to something- most likely it's just an infection though...
At 7:25 PM,
Joe G said…
Hey Rich are you upset because blipey won't make those squeaky little muskrat noises without you telling him to? It's just not the same as when it's spontaneous is it?
Is that what has turned you into a screaming wanker?
Hey blipey, just make those squeaky little muskrat noises when Rich cums home. Please- do it before he hurts himself....
At 7:51 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
You'll need better bait then that to get a rise out of me, Joe. I doubt you're clever enough.
Your homerotic fixation does make me think you might be supressing something, though.
At 8:52 PM,
Joe G said…
I call 'em like I see 'em.
Also I don't think it's erotic at all- but I see you do.
At 9:43 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoeroticism
And you bring it up any chance you get...
At 10:08 PM,
Reciprocating Bill said…
RB: "Step 2 (figuring out the ho/why of the designer) hasn't occurred yet…"
Joe G: "Perhaps not to your satisfaction…"
I haven't seen any efforts. All I have ever encountered are evasions such as yours: "ID is NOT about the designer" etc.
"Also as I have explained saying "design is a mechanism" is a placeholder, albeit not empty, just unknown."
A distinction without a difference. A theoretical mechanism of unknown content has no more worth than one devoid of content.
"Ya see saying the mechanism was design means we have already eliminated blind, undirected (chemical) processes."
IOW, just by "saying" the mechanism was designed, you know the mechanism was designed.
ID's essence has never been better expressed.
At 7:17 AM,
Joe G said…
R Bill:
I haven't seen any efforts.
So what? Who the fuck are you?
I bet you haven't seen any efforts to demonstrate blind, undirected chemical processes can construct a functional multi=part system.
R Bill:
All I have ever encountered are evasions such as yours: "ID is NOT about the designer" etc.
That is like your evasion that the theory of evolution is not about the OoL.
Geez this thread proves all you are is an evasive evotard.
"Also as I have explained saying "design is a mechanism" is a placeholder, albeit not empty, just unknown."
R Bill:
A distinction without a difference.
Maybe there isn't any difference to you but there is to educated people.
"Ya see saying the mechanism was design means we have already eliminated blind, undirected (chemical) processes."
R Bill:
IOW, just by "saying" the mechanism was designed, you know the mechanism was designed.
Nope by saying it was deigned means we have eliminated other possibilities.
At 7:17 AM,
Joe G said…
Reciprocating Bill has said that unless ID can describe the agency/ agencies responsible for the design, then saying design is a mechanism is devoid of content = empty. That is because design being a mechanism entails and agency/ agencies.
He never supports his claim- it is just his say-so.
However if we apply this "logic" to the theory of evolution we can easily see that it is devoid of content = empty because the ToE entails the origin of living organisms. So without a description of how that happened that means the ToE is devoid of content = empty. Ya see according to Bill's "logic" a description of the OoL is the only way to cash out the ToE's proposed mechanisms.
Thanks Bill- I am sure you will be writing to science journals explaining your break-through.
At 7:20 AM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoeroticism
And you bring it up any chance you get...
I call 'em like I see 'em assface.
Your the one all hot and bothered about a low-life loser. There mus be something behind that, if you know what I mean...
At 7:26 AM,
Reciprocating Bill said…
RB: "I haven't seen any efforts."
Joe G: "So what? Who the fuck are you?"
OK, perhaps I missed them.
But you seem sure they exist, so point us to a link or reference documenting efforts within ID to figure out the how/why of the designer by studying designs.
At 7:28 AM,
Joe G said…
Reciprocating Bill has said that unless ID can describe the agency/ agencies responsible for the design, then saying design is a mechanism is devoid of content = empty. That is because design being a mechanism entails and agency/ agencies.
He never supports his claim- it is just his say-so.
However if we apply this "logic" to the theory of evolution we can easily see that it is devoid of content = empty because the ToE entails the origin of living organisms. So without a description of how that happened that means the ToE is devoid of content = empty. Ya see according to Bill's "logic" a description of the OoL is the only way to cash out the ToE's proposed mechanisms.
Thanks Bill- I am sure you will be writing to science journals explaining your break-through.
stay on-topic
At 7:30 AM,
Joe G said…
It appears all R Bill can do is try to enforce double-standards.
Ya see if we apply his "logic" to his position then he is being evasive and the theory of evolution is devoid of content = empty because it does not deal with the origin of life.
And all he can do to get around tat is to distrct people by attacking ID.
It ain't working Billy.
At 8:24 AM,
Joe G said…
R Bill:
Step 2 hasn't occurred yet, so, as of this moment you know exactly zero about the "how" (or "why" in the instance of agency) of your agentic "mechanism."
As I said many time the why has been explained in "The Privileged Planet" and a targeted search would be the how.
IOW it is obvious to anyone who isn't running around with their head up their ass that effeorts to identify the why and how are under way.
At 9:06 AM,
Reciprocating Bill said…
JoeG:
"IOW it is obvious...that effeorts to identify the why and how are under way.
Ok, so point us to a link or reference to the obvious efforts within ID to figure out the how/why of the designer by studying designs.
At 9:12 AM,
Joe G said…
R Bill:
Ok, so point us to a link or reference to the obvious efforts within ID to figure out the how/why of the designer by studying designs.
"The Privileged Plantet"- there I typed slowly this time.
That book goes over one obvious effort to figure out the why.
And other people have demonstrated the power of a targeted search in a resource-rich configuration space- that deals with the how.
But anyway Gonzalez and Richards predicted people like you:
“In fact, no amount of evidence for apparent design could ever count as evidence of actual design. But if science is a search for the best explanation, based on the actual evidence from the physical world, rather than merely a search for the best materialistic or impersonal explanations of the physical world, how responsible is it to adopt a principle that makes one incapable of seeing an entire class of evidence?" page 270 of TPP
At 10:20 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
“In fact, no amount of evidence for apparent design could ever count as evidence of actual design.
- This is patently false. Observing design happening is evidence for that design and most rational agents would accept this. I presume Bill would.
At 10:23 AM,
Joe G said…
“In fact, no amount of evidence for apparent design could ever count as evidence of actual design.
Rich:
- This is patently false.
All the vidence says it is corrct.
Rich:
Observing design happening is evidence for that design and most rational agents would accept this.
That is poof. IOW it is just as Gonzalez and Richards said- thanks for confirming that.
At 10:24 AM,
Joe G said…
Rich sez the only "evidence" for design he will accept is proof of design.
However if his schtick is applied to his position he wouldn't be an evolutionist.
What a patheic imbecile...
At 10:28 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Rich sez the only "evidence" for design he will accept is proof of design.
Actually, I didn't say that at all, you bad knee-jerker. All I did was falsify Gonzales' statement “In fact, no amount of evidence for apparent design could ever count as evidence of actual design.", and it was trivially easy as actual design is also apparent design, apparently.
At 10:44 AM,
Joe G said…
Rich sez the only "evidence" for design he will accept is proof of design.
Rich:
Actually, I didn't say that at all,
Actually you did:
Observing design happening is evidence for that design and most rational agents would accept this.
That equals proof. Now you can try to deny that but that only makes you look more dishonest than you already appear. And that takes some doing.
At 10:53 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
You clearly have reading comprehension issues.
I didn't say (and let's be clear, I'm paraphrasing) the only evidence I'd accept was actual design I said that Gonzales claim that no apparent design would convince folks of actual design is false because actual design is both actual and apparent.
Sorry if this is too complicated for you.
trying to make it simple (for you) - Things that are actually designed are also apparently designed.
At 11:04 AM,
Joe G said…
Rich YOU have reading comprehension issues.
YOU said only direct observation- which is proof- is all you would accept.
Rich:
Things that are actually designed are also apparently designed.
That's just dumb. They ain't apparently designed if tey were actually designed. Duh
At 11:09 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
"YOU said only direct observation- which is proof- is all you would accept."
I didn't comment on what I'd accept at all. I showed Gonzales to be wrong in his statement. Goodness you are thick.
"That's just dumb. They ain't apparently designed if they were actually designed. Duh"
Let's have some fun with this. We find object X. It's apparently designed. Does that mean it can't actually be designed? Because that's what you're suggesting, that it's binary, that actual design is not a subset of actual design.
No wonder you can't get nested hierarchies!
At 11:14 AM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
I didn't comment on what I'd accept at all.
YOU said:
Observing design happening is evidence for that design and most rational agents would accept this.
Right, you're not a rational agent, got it.
Rich:
I showed Gonzales to be wrong in his statement.
You may think you did, but you didn't. They were talking about EVIDENCE and you posited PROOF.
Rich:
We find object X. It's apparently designed.
What does that even mean? Only someone completely ognorant of investigative techniques would pput up such a bogus argument.
Go have fun with yourself.
At 11:20 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Right, you're not a rational agent, got it."
I didn't make any comment on my rationality, Joe. Learn to read and understand.
"What does that even mean?" It *looks* designed to some people.
At 4:22 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
I didn't make any comment on my rationality, Joe.
You said what rational people would do and you said that it did not pertain to you.
YOU said:
Observing design happening is evidence for that design and most rational agents would accept this.
And then:
I didn't comment on what I'd accept at all.
Therefor you must be an irrational agent.
At 7:34 PM,
Reciprocating Bill said…
Joe G:
"'The Privileged Plantet'- there I typed slowly this time."
You typed slowly and came up with "Privileged Plantet?"
But cool. What characteristics does Gonzalez conclude characterize the designer? Particularly with respect to the beliefs, desires, and intentions of the designer - those dimensions ordinarily ascribed to agentic causation.
At 8:47 AM,
Joe G said…
R Bill:
You typed slowly and came up with "Privileged Plantet?"
That's what happens when I try to slow down.
R Bill:
What characteristics does Gonzalez conclude characterize the designer? Particularly with respect to the beliefs, desires, and intentions of the designer - those dimensions ordinarily ascribed to agentic causation.
Intentions- and I have told you already Bill- that our place in the cosmos was designed for (scientific) discovery and a place like that needs entities who can make such discoveries.
But none of that addresses the fact that by your logic- YOUR LOGIC- R Bill, if we apply this "logic" to the theory of evolution we can easily see that it is devoid of content = empty because the ToE entails the origin of living organisms. So without a description of how that happened that means the ToE is devoid of content = empty. Ya see according to Bill's "logic" a description of the OoL is the only way to cash out the ToE's proposed mechanisms.
Thanks Bill- I am sure you will be writing to science journals explaining your break-through.
At 10:02 AM,
Reciprocating Bill said…
Joe G:
"Intentions- and I have told you already Bill- that our place in the cosmos was designed for (scientific) discovery and a place like that needs entities who can make such discoveries."
So, we have a cosmos. In the cosmos there are entities (us) capable of scientific discovery. And we are situated in a place from which scientific discovery is possible.
From that we conclude that there was/is a designer who wanted there to be a cosmos, wanted there to be a place therein from which scientific discovery is possible, wanted entities capable of scientific discovery to be situated there, and is clever and capable enough to make all that happen.
So, we do know something about the designer! It's the sort of designer who wants things like that.
I also notice there was a Ted Bundy in the cosmos who serially murdered dozens of women, situated in a place where the serial murder of dozens of women is possible. So we're learning more every day!
Let's summarize what we know about the designer:
- It's the sort who wanted there to be a cosmos,
- It's the sort who wanted there to be a place from which scientific discovery is possible,
- It's sort who wanted entities there capable of scientific discovery to be in that place,
- It's the sort who wanted there to be a serial murderer named Ted Bundy in the cosmos,
- It's the sort who wanted him to have a place where he could murder dozens of women, and,
- It's the sort who is clever and capable enough to make all that happen.
I think you're on to something, although I'm not sure how I feel about Mr. Designer.
At 10:23 AM,
Joe G said…
Thank you for proving my point- which is evolutionists can't support their position so they have to erect a strawman.
Nicely done...
At 10:25 AM,
Joe G said…
R Bill:
I think you're on to something, although I'm not sure how I feel about Mr. Designer.
Yeah, now that is evotard "science" at its best.
Nicely done indeed.
At 1:56 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"You said what rational people would do and you said that it did not pertain to you."
I didn't comment on what I'd accept at all. This is the second time I've told you this. Try not to be thick.
You even quote this in the same post further down. How stupid are you?
"Therefor you must be an irrational agent."
This does not follow if I've not disclosed by position. Go and take a basic logic course.
At 1:59 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Yeah, now that is evotard "science" at its best."
Actually he's just copied your methodology, Reductio ad absurdum. The fact it is asinine is your problem, not his.
At 10:06 PM,
Reciprocating Bill said…
Joe G:
"Thank you for proving my point."
What the forgoing shows is that the reasoning employed in the PP can be made to support any claim one wishes about the characteristics and dispositions of "the designer."
That means that you really haven't learned a thing about the designer, which leaves your mechanism devoid of content. No wonder you insist that "ID is NOT about the designer."
All you need do in response to this is to drop the pretense that ID postulates a mechanism that can do any scientific work. It doesn't.
At 10:46 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
Actually he's just copied your methodology
Nope, not even close.
At 10:47 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
I didn't comment on what I'd accept at all.
YOU said:
Observing design happening is evidence for that design and most rational agents would accept this.
And then:
I didn't comment on what I'd accept at all.
Therefor you must be an irrational agent.
At 10:55 PM,
Joe G said…
R Bill:
What the forgoing shows is that the reasoning employed in the PP can be made to support any claim one wishes about the characteristics and dispositions of "the designer."
Except "The Privileged Planet" is based on scientific data and evidence.
Also it is obvious that Bundy et al are what happens when genetic accidents are allowed to accumulate in a once very good design.
R Bill:
That means that you really haven't learned a thing about the designer,
Because you can act like an asshole I haven't learned a thing about the designer? LoL!
R Bill:
which leaves your mechanism devoid of content.
Except it isn't for the reasons provided.
R Bill:
No wonder you insist that "ID is NOT about the designer."
We insist ID is not about the designer because A) ID is about the design and B) Reality dictates that we don't need to know the designer BEFORE dtermining design exists and then studying it. All design-centric venues, from archaeology, to forensics to SETI work that way.
R Bill:
All you need do in response to this is to drop the pretense that ID postulates a mechanism that can do any scientific work.
No pretense- saying something was designed tells us quite a bit and helps the investigation.
But anyway thanks again for proving my point:
Reciprocating Bill has said that unless ID can describe the agency/ agencies responsible for the design, then saying design is a mechanism is devoid of content = empty. That is because design being a mechanism entails and agency/ agencies.
He never supports his claim- it is just his say-so.
However if we apply this "logic" to the theory of evolution we can easily see that it is devoid of content = empty because the ToE entails the origin of living organisms. So without a description of how that happened that means the ToE is devoid of content = empty. Ya see according to Bill's "logic" a description of the OoL is the only way to cash out the ToE's proposed mechanisms.
Thanks Bill- I am sure you will be writing to science journals explaining your break-through.
At 8:00 AM,
Reciprocating Bill said…
Joe G:
"Except "The Privileged Planet" is based on scientific data and evidence."
Unfortunately, nothing prevents people from engaging in circular and wishful reasoning over the evidence, as PP demonstrates.
"Also it is obvious that Bundy et al are what happens when genetic accidents are allowed to accumulate in a once very good design."
We may have learned more about the designer!
- It's the sort that wants genetic accidents to accumulate in once very good designs, culminating in serial murders and murderers.
I'm liking the designer less and less.
Vis your repetition of the OP, I see no reason to repeat my response to it, as it stands unrebutted above.
At 9:49 AM,
Joe G said…
R Bill:
Unfortunately, nothing prevents people from engaging in circular and wishful reasoning over the evidence, as PP demonstrates.
Unfortunately all you have is that false accusation.
R Bill:
Vis your repetition of the OP, I see no reason to repeat my response to it,
Your "response" was shown to be total bullshit and nothing but cowardly hand-waving.
At 9:54 AM,
Joe G said…
Reciprocating Bill has said that unless ID can describe the agency/ agencies responsible for the design, then saying design is a mechanism is devoid of content = empty. That is because design being a mechanism entails and agency/ agencies.
He never supports his claim- it is just his say-so.
However if we apply this "logic" to the theory of evolution we can easily see that it is devoid of content = empty because the ToE entails the origin of living organisms. So without a description of how that happened that means the ToE is devoid of content = empty. Ya see according to Bill's "logic" a description of the OoL is the only way to cash out the ToE's proposed mechanisms.
Thanks Bill- I am sure you will be writing to science journals explaining your break-through.
Still stands, unrebutted as you cannot have a diversity of living organisms without first having an origin of living organisms and how those organisms originated directly impacts all subsequent diversity.
Also R Bill's claim about ID needing to describe the designer before the mechanism of design has any weight, remains unsupported.
At 10:00 AM,
Joe G said…
Double-standards anyone? Get your double-standards here!
Evotards are so freakin' clueless. They attack ID and say IDists are being evasive because ID is not about the designer. Yet the evolutionitwits, by the same standard, are being evasive for trying to separate the ToE from the origin of living organisms.
Sure they will say that the ToE is only about living organisms- but ID is only about the design, so what the fuck? Double-standard.
Then they say that the mechanism of deign is devoid of content = empty because we don't know the designer. Yet when applied to their position it means the theory of evolution is devoid of content = empty because it doesn't say anything about te OoL. Yet they just brush that off and prattle on about ID. Double-standard.
The point is if the evotards apply 1/2 the skepticism they have for ID towards their position they wouldn't be evolutionists.
At 10:02 AM,
Joe G said…
R Bill's strawman:
We may have learned more about the designer!
- It's the sort that wants genetic accidents to accumulate in once very good designs, culminating in serial murders and murderers.
No it's the sort that undersatnds discoveries don't take place in a perfect universe.
Now we get to learn, ie discover, what genetic accidents can do. And tehn we learn, ie discover, what to do about it.
Not that I would expect a strawman erecting denialist to understand any of that.
At 11:35 AM,
Reciprocating Bill said…
Joe G:
"Your "response" was shown to be total bullshit and nothing but cowardly hand-waving."
I don't recall you showing anything. I do recall that you wandered into the weeds of irrelevancy vis whether natural selection is a "mechanism" or a "result." I also recall your illogical claim that evolutionary mechanisms are empty because we don't have a good account of the OOL. I remember you invoking baramology. And I observed your lapse into repeating your OP. None of those arguments come close to addressing the logic of my response.
It remains the case that the mechanisms invoked by evolutionary biology cannot account for the origin of the first replicators because they require replicating organisms in order to occur. It doesn't follow that they are devoid of content once replication is under way (i.e. the emergence of diversity and complexity). The opposite is manifestly true. Because they work regardless of the origins of the first replicators, they therefore do not entail a particular finding vis those origins.
At 8:06 PM,
Joe G said…
R Bill:
I do recall that you wandered into the weeds of irrelevancy vis whether natural selection is a "mechanism" or a "result."
LoL- Natural selection is irrelevant- it is also a result of three processes, ie mechanisms.
You seem to have mental issues with that and prattle on as if your ignorance is some sort of refutation.
R Bill:
I also recall your illogical claim that evolutionary mechanisms are empty because we don't have a good account of the OOL.
According to your logic they are empty for that very reason. It is your logic that the diversity of living organisms is tied into how they got here- you are saying of we can't demonstrate how the desigenr designed then saying design as a mechanism is empty.
So if origins is linked to diversity for ID then origins is linked to diversity for your position- otherwise you are employing a cowardly double-standard.
R Bill:
And I observed your lapse into repeating your OP.
Because you have yet to rebut it.
R Bill:
It remains the case that the mechanisms invoked by evolutionary biology cannot account for the origin of the first replicators because they require replicating organisms in order to occur.
It remains the case that the theory of evolution posits blind, undirected chemical processes. It also remains the case that if living organisms did not arise from non-living matter via blind, undirected processes that premise of the ToE is total bullshit, devoid of content = empty.
I have explained that to you and you have refused to address it. What are you so afraid of?
At 8:10 PM,
Joe G said…
Also saying something is/ was designed, ie design was the mechanism, can't be empty as it is a game changer- ie it changes the investigation.
A rock formation that geology cannot explain and shows signs of work- call in the archaeologists. It changes everything.
At 12:16 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Joe, you clearly have reading comprehension and logic issues. "My" pertains to "me" and "most rational agents" pertains" to most rational agents.
Your inability to understand basis English or your desire to misinterpret will make meaningful discourse difficult.
At 6:58 AM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
Joe, you clearly have reading comprehension and logic issues.
So you say but the evidence says you are a clueless twit.
At 6:58 AM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
Your inability to understand basis English or your desire to misinterpret will make meaningful discourse difficult.
Nice projection...
At 9:35 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Nice projection...
In denial...
At 10:37 AM,
Joe G said…
Yes, you are in denial so you are forced to project.
Post a Comment
<< Home