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

Tuesday, November 09, 2010

Why Design is a Mechanism and Only Ignorant People can Deny it

-
If a mecahnism is a method or means of doing something and design is the way is which something is planned and made then it is obvious and undeniable that design is a mechanism.

And in the context of ID vs the ToE mechanism pertains to a method or means of doing something- For example according to the ToE an accumulation of genetic accidents is the method or means (ie the way) by which the diversity of living organisms arose.

And according to ID they evolved by design, as in a targeted search and/ or built-in responses to environmental cues.

62 Comments:

  • At 2:35 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    You should post more at ATBC - no censorship, posts automatically approved, bigger readership.. :-D

     
  • At 2:46 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No I have to take a shower every time I leave that place.

    That place is full of clueless losers- i just like going there and poking people in the hopes one wants to meet me and take a swing...

     
  • At 3:06 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Why would anyone want to take a swing at you? Why would you want them to?

     
  • At 3:59 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    Why would anyone want to take a swing at you?

    It is obvious that evotards want a fight and I am ready, willing and able to give them one.

    Fuck it is all you chumps have left- if you had the evidence you would just produce it but you don't.

    PZ has thrown down the gauntlet saying shit about brass knuckles and baseball bats, Lenny the fuck-head Flank has also.

    So I say "fuck all that it's time to get on with these" - Pink Floyd "Not Now john"

    Rich:
    Why would you want them to?

    To see if they are ready to cash the checks their mouths keep writing.

     
  • At 4:00 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    Rich Hughes said...

    Why would anyone want to take a swing at you? Why would you want them to?


    Joe means that he swings both ways, and is trolling for a hookup.

     
  • At 4:04 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "It is obvious that evotards want a fight and I am ready, willing and able to give them one."

    I don't think it's obviuous at all. You're the one who keeps bringing it up..

    "To see if they are ready to cash the checks their mouths keep writing."

    They ask for peer-review, not fisty cuffs.

    And Joe, you're not scary, AT ALL. But it is funny, so keep going.

     
  • At 4:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    I don't think it's obviuous at all.

    LoL! You are the moron who doesn't think design is a mechanism. IOW obviously you aren't in any position to make any determinations.

    Rich:
    You're the one who keeps bringing it up..

    Because it is obvious tat is what evotards want.

    Rich:
    They ask for peer-review, not fisty cuffs.

    They need to provide peer-review for their position. And their comments scream "let's fight".

    Rich:
    And Joe, you're not scary, AT ALL.

    I know I'm not scary. I am just another person who is fed up with lying evotards and their constant bullshit bullying.

    But Rich, you are still a mental midget.

     
  • At 4:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hey thortard did you ever get that straw out of troy's ass?

    Just so you know I think it is sick that you use a straw to suck your jizz out of his rectum after you have dumped your load...

     
  • At 4:15 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "And their comments scream "let's fight"."

    Quote a few, let's examine the evidence where it leads, you big cyberbully!

    You've got a history - Hermagoras..

     
  • At 4:15 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Just so you know I think it is sick that you use a straw to suck your jizz out of his rectum after you have dumped your load..."

    Do you teach *that* in ID awarness day?

     
  • At 4:22 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    Quote a few, let's examine the evidence where it leads, you big cyberbully!

    I'm a cyberbully because I stand up to assholes like you? BWAAAAHAAAHAAAAAHAAAA

    Rich:
    You've got a history - Hermagoras..

    Kellogg was running his mouth like the mental midget he is.

    IOW his mouth was writing checks he could not cash.

     
  • At 4:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    Do you teach *that* in ID awarness day?

    Do I tell them that thorton is a sick fuck? That doesn't have anything to do with the ID.

    But if you want to learn how to do it I am sure thorton will teach you.

     
  • At 4:25 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    Quote a few, let's examine the evidence where it leads,

    Dude you are sooooo fucked up you can't even follow a dictionary.

    IOW you ain't in any position to follow the evidence.

     
  • At 4:26 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Still asking for quotes asking for a fight. As you think Hermagoras did it, perhaps you'd like to start there.


    While I do feel you deserve a slap, you're not getting one - because I'm better than you. :-)

     
  • At 4:31 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Still asking for Richtard or ay evotard to produce positive evidence for their position.

    And you won't slap me Rich because I would block the slap attempt and have you on your ass before you could squirt your ink...

    Just sayin'..

     
  • At 4:32 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    As for quotes asking for a fight just look for any insults aimed at IDists and Creationists.

    Then there would be the muiad of lies and misrepresentations about ID and Creation.

     
  • At 4:33 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Are you changing the subject Joe because you can't find any examples, Joe?

    And, in my experience, talkers ain't fighters and fighters ain't talkers. But I'm sure in your mind you're a ninja.

     
  • At 4:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The subject is "Why Design is a Mechanism and Only Ignorant People can Deny it"- and that means you are the asshole who is changing the subject.

    Rich:
    Are you changing the subject Joe because you can't find any examples, Joe?

    Are you saying that you are too stupid or dishonest to understand that what I am saying is the truth?

    Rich:
    And, in my experience, talkers ain't fighters and fighters ain't talkers.

    Talkers shouldn't write checks they cannot cash.

    Rich:
    But I'm sure in your mind you're a ninja.

    Nope just a guy who is sick and tired of evotard bullshit and bullying.

     
  • At 4:40 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Still no examples of "their comments scream "let's fight". "

    Is this another design detection malfunction on your part?

     
  • At 4:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    They are right there in that forum.

    Are you admitting that you are too stupid to find them?

    I just go there to poke people. I am not going there to search for something you can find on your own.

    And if you can't find it on your own then you are more stupid and dishones than I thought.

     
  • At 4:48 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    Your poking leaves us in stitches, Joe. Come again!

     
  • At 4:50 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Your poking your boyfriend while another guy is poking you leaves us in stiches.

    And I am happy to hear that your colleagues and students will pay big bucks to watcch me kick your ass and leave you in stiches...

     
  • At 4:52 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And oleg I have already taken a shower today so I won't be going back there until my next bath day, maybe next week...


    LoL!!!

     
  • At 5:01 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Are you admitting that you are too stupid to find them?"

    Show me them Joe! Make your point!

     
  • At 5:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thank you for making my point- not only are you too stupid to stay on-topic you are too stupid to find evidence.

    As I told oleg perhaps next week I will go back there. But the evidence is right there for anyone with 1/2 a brain to see.

    so what is your problem?

     
  • At 5:07 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And Rich I ahve spoon-fed you the evidence that design is a mechanism and you still deny it.

    I have spoon-fed you how to measure CSI and you still act like an ignot every time CSI gets mentioned.

    IOW Rich finding evidence for you is a waste of my time.

     
  • At 5:10 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Oh joe - its looking like there are no quotes to support your claim that folks want to fight you. Do it for the onlookers! prove me wrong!

     
  • At 5:15 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I have proven you wrong so many times one more will not do any more damage.

    You are a proven loser and liar.

     
  • At 5:15 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Do it for the onlookers, joe!

    What's that? got nothing again?

    still making things up?

    What a wuss. In every conceivable way.

     
  • At 5:16 PM, Blogger Reciprocating Bill said…

    An analog clock is a mechanism.

    "How does it work?"

    (Then follows an explanation describing the actions of the mainspring, escapement, gears, etc.)

    Design is a mechanism.

    "How does it work?"

    (Then follows an explanation referring to....)

    What?

     
  • At 5:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    Oh joe - its looking like there are no quotes to support your claim that folks want to fight you.

    The forum is filled with insults- man you are a dishonest fuck...

     
  • At 5:17 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard,

    The onlookers know what I am saying is true.

     
  • At 5:19 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Joe "Not Jim" G -"their comments scream "let's fight". "



    Joe "Not Jim" G - "I thought it was funny that the only evo to step up and want to mix it up with me was a girl."

    Make up your mind you half-wit.

     
  • At 5:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Bill:
    An analog clock is a mechanism.

    Yes it is. However that isn't the type of mechanism I am talking about.

    Or are you saying that the mechanisms of evolution are like an analog clock?

    But anyway Bill are you sooo fucking stupid that you cannot understand the OP?

    Why is it taht you cnnot address the points I made in the OP?

     
  • At 5:21 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "The onlookers know what I am saying is true."

    are you telepathic now as well, superman?

     
  • At 5:21 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    -"their comments scream "let's fight". "

    "I thought it was funny that the only evo to step up and want to mix it up with me was a girl."


    Rich:
    Make up your mind you half-wit.

    I have made up my mind- you are a lying loser who couldn't find, let alone follow, the evidence.

     
  • At 5:23 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "The onlookers know what I am saying is true."

    Muskrat Rich:
    are you telepathic now as well, superman?

    No, as I said it is obvious to anyone with 1/2 a brain- which is why it ain't obvious t you.

     
  • At 5:24 PM, Blogger Reciprocating Bill said…

    Opening post, opening sentence: "it is obvious and undeniable that design is a mechanism."

    OK. Design is a mechanism. What's the mechanism? How does it work?

     
  • At 5:24 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    How come your quotes (from the same day) contradict each other?

    How come you know what your readers are thinking?

    Tell us, superman!

     
  • At 5:42 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Yes it is. However that isn't the type of mechanism I am talking about."

    Unfortunately, it's the type of (scientifically testable) mechanism everyone but you is talking about.

     
  • At 5:45 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    R Bill:
    Opening post, opening sentence:If a mecahnism is a method or means of doing something and design is the way is which something is planned and made then it is obvious and undeniable that design is a mechanism.
    OK. Design is a mechanism.

    Thank you.

    R Bill:
    What's the mechanism? How does it work?

    Directed mutations as in a targeted search, built-in responses to environmental cues are two possibilities.

    Those are contra to the ToE's proposed mechanism of an accumulation of genetic accidents.

    see also:

    specific design mechanisms

     
  • At 5:47 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    How come your quotes (from the same day) contradict each other?

    What quotes false accusation-man?

    Rich:
    How come you know what your readers are thinking?

    Who said I know what my readers are thinking assman?

     
  • At 5:53 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Yes it is. However that isn't the type of mechanism I am talking about." (pertaining to an analog clock- ie a piece of machinery, a mechanism)

    Richtard:
    Unfortunately, it's the type of (scientifically testable) mechanism everyone but you is talking about.

    Unfortunately for you you are an imbecile.

    Bill said:
    An analog clock is a mechanism.

    So is Richtard trying to say that an accumulation of genetic accidents is like an analog clock?

    Or is Richtard just your basic imbecile?

    Give up Rich it is obvious you are a fucking moron.

     
  • At 5:54 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "...are two possibilities."

    Ah, conjecture. Come back when you have something testable.

     
  • At 5:56 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    JOE: "What quotes false accusation-man?"

    Okay:

    Joe "Not Jim" G -"their comments scream "let's fight". "


    Joe "Not Jim" G - "I thought it was funny that the only evo to step up and want to mix it up with me was a girl."

    JOE: "Who said I know what my readers are thinking assman?"

    Okay: "The onlookers know what I am saying is true."

    Easy.

     
  • At 5:56 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard:
    Unfortunately, it's the type of (scientifically testable) mechanism everyone but you is talking about.

    Hey we went over this the other day in the other thread. You were proven to be wrong then too:

    Rich:
    Everyone but you is using version 2 (Dembski included).


    Evidence please. Also eversion 2 fits- action- design is the act of doing X.

    However it is clear that mechanisms in context means a exactly what I posted. Mutation and selection is a process for achieving a result.

    IOW you are so stupid that you haven't a clue.

     
  • At 5:57 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "...are two possibilities."

    Richtard:
    Ah, conjecture. Come back when you have something testable.

    Said the evotard whose position is untestable.

     
  • At 6:00 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    their comments scream "let's fight". "

    I thought it was funny that the only evo to step up and want to mix it up with me was a girl."

    JOE: "Who said I know what my readers are thinking assman?"

    Okay: "The onlookers know what I am saying is true."


    Richtard:
    Easy.

    easy what? Where are the contradictory quotes? Do you know what the word "contradictory" means?

    And the onlookers kniow what I am saying is true because it is obvious you moron.

     
  • At 6:15 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Someone needs to buy Rich a dictionary and teach him how to use it.

    It ain't for wiping your ass Rich...

     
  • At 6:20 PM, Blogger Reciprocating Bill said…

    Natural selection is not aptly described as "a process FOR achieving a result."

    "For" in this sentence unpacks into "for the purpose of." But natural selection doesn't embody any purpose - it isn't "for" anything. If the "mechanism" simile is apt at all for NS, NS is a mechanism in the sense of "the processes involved in the way something works," which doesn't require an embodiment of purpose. To cash out this sense of mechanism as an explanation is to describe the processes involved.

    Design, OTOH, is "a process for achieving a result" by definition. "For" again unpacks into "for the purpose of." Design, as something undertaken "for the purpose of" is, again by definition, the action of an agent. To cash out this sense of mechanism is to describe the agent or agents involved.

    So there is a significant disanalogy between the senses in which NS and ID may be said to be mechanisms.

    Given that ID posits a mechanism in above sense, what agent lies behind the mechanism of ID?

     
  • At 6:34 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    R Bill:
    Natural selection is not aptly described as "a process FOR achieving a result."

    No it is a result.

    But an accumulation of genetic accidents is the alleged evolutionary process FOR achieving a result.

    That is what I said right- an accumulation of genetic accidents?

    R Bill:
    Given that ID posits a mechanism in above sense, what agent lies behind the mechanism of ID?

    One that is capable of such a thing. ID is not about the agent.

     
  • At 6:43 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Per Joe's link a mechanism is "method or means: a method or means of doing something" but he also claims it is "No it is a result."

    Which is it Joe? You're contradicting yourself again.

    Explaining "how X happened" by stating "X happened" is even less use that you are.


    *Mwah*

     
  • At 6:51 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard:
    Per Joe's link a mechanism is "method or means: a method or means of doing something" but he also claims it is "No it is a result."

    LoL!!! What an asshole you are. I said natural selection is a result.

    Are you that fucked up that you can't even follow a simple post?

    Or do you enjoy proving that you are an imbecile?

     
  • At 6:54 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Who wants to fight you Joe?

     
  • At 7:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    Who wants to fight you Joe?

    No one who knows me.

    My point is more general asshole- it is that evotards want to fight and their language is my proof.

    PZ said he wants to break out the brass knucles and baseball bats- I wish he would but unfortunately he is all talk.

     
  • At 8:27 PM, Blogger Reciprocating Bill said…

    "But an accumulation of genetic accidents is the alleged evolutionary process FOR achieving a result."

    Not "for" in the sense of "for the purpose of." This is better restated simply as "a process that has a particular result (evolution)." "For" is best left out, particularly in this context.

    RB: "Given that ID posits a mechanism in above sense, what agent lies behind the mechanism of ID?"

    JoeG: "One that is capable of such a thing. ID is not about the agent."

    But that leaves the claim that "ID is a mechanism," even in the senses of "a method or means of doing something" or "a process for achieving a result" completely empty. The "mechanism" you describe is one that entails agency, and therefore can only be cashed out by a description of the agent. Yet you (like most who espouse ID) evade any discussion of the agent.

    Hence the abject explanatory emptiness at the heart of ID.

     
  • At 9:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "But an accumulation of genetic accidents is the alleged evolutionary process FOR achieving a result."

    R Bill:
    Not "for" in the sense of "for the purpose of."

    So what? Just because you can add extra baggage to a word doesn't mean shit to me.

    R Bill:
    But that leaves the claim that "ID is a mechanism," even in the senses of "a method or means of doing something" or "a process for achieving a result" completely empty.

    Why- just because you say so?

    What a fucking asshole.

    R Bill:
    The "mechanism" you describe is one that entails agency, and therefore can only be cashed out by a description of the agent.

    Yes I know what it entails but what you say about it has only the weight of you saying it.

    IOW what you say doesn't have any value.

    R Bill:
    Yet you (like most who espouse ID) evade any discussion of the agent.

    No evasion moron.

    Ya se we realize tat reality dictates that the ONLY way to make ANY scientific determination about the designer(s) or the specific design mechanisms used is by studying the design in question.

    That is how it works with forensics and archaeology.

    IOW Bill you are just another clueless evotard.

    R Bill:
    Hence the abject explanatory emptiness at the heart of ID.

    Yet it ain't quite as empty as your position.

    Your position has the explanatory power of a little kid caught with his hand in the cookie jaw trying to expalin that he was looking for his homework.

     
  • At 9:47 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    IDists not talking about the designer(s) has the same abject emptiness as evotards not talking about nor including abiogenesis in their theory of evolution. After all evolution entails an origin of living organisms.

    Evotards are soooo fucking clueless it is pathetic...

     
  • At 10:14 PM, Blogger Reciprocating Bill said…

    R Bill: "But that leaves the claim that 'ID is a mechanism," even in the senses of 'a method or means of doing something' or 'a process for achieving a result' completely empty."

    Joe G: "Why- just because you say so?"

    Because "mechanism" in the sense you ascribe to ID entails purposeful agency ("Yes I know what it entails").

    A description of that agency is the only way to cash out the explanatory utility of your mechanism. Absent that description, your "mechanism" is devoid of content. Devoid of content = empty.

    "tat reality dictates that the ONLY way to make ANY scientific determination about the designer(s) or the specific design mechanisms used is by studying the design in question."

    So, what has ID learned about the designer or designers by that means?

     
  • At 10:56 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Tell him about Ghosthunters too, Joe/Jim.

     
  • At 7:21 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    R Bill:
    Because "mechanism" in the sense you ascribe to ID entails purposeful agency

    Right but we don't have to know who/ what that is.

    And the "mechanism" in the sense you scribe to evolution entails the origin of living organisms.
    Nice of you to ignore that.

    R Bill:
    A description of that agency is the only way to cash out the explanatory utility of your mechanism.

    Reference please- your say-so is meaningless.

    As I said by your "logic" the theory of evolution entails the origin of livig organisms so without a description of the OoL your mecahnsim is content free = empty.

    R Bill:
    Absent that description, your "mechanism" is devoid of content. Devoid of content = empty.Ya se we realize tat reality dictates that the ONLY way to make ANY scientific determination about the designer(s) or the specific design mechanisms used is by studying the design in question.

    That is how it works with forensics and archaeology.


    R Bill:
    So, what has ID learned about the designer or designers by that means?

    ID doesn't learn- it is the theory- that is like saying wat has the ToE leaned.

    That said IDists d not hae the resources to chase down and answer all the uestions and ID is NOTabout the designer.

    Shit you asshole havehad over 150 years and you STILL have nothing to show for it.

     
  • At 7:21 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Muskrat Rich:
    Tell him about Ghosthunters too,

    Tell him what?

     

Post a Comment

<< Home