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, April 12, 2011

What Complex Specified Informations have been calculated?

-
It never fails. Bring up complex specified information- something that humans use and depend on every day- and evotards start convulsing and spewing evotardgasms.

The latest is from RichTard Hughes who asked:
What CSIs have you, calculated Joe / Jim / John Paul?

What Complex Specified Informations have you, calculated Joe / Jim / John Paul??????

Rich, you are the missing link between being totally brain dead and having the "intelligence" of a rock.

52 Comments:

  • At 12:41 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Hi Joe, Jim, John, the Muslim creationist. CSI is a Boolean, 0 for SI of less than 500 bits and 1 for SI of 500 bits or greater. More math you can't do. So to be clear, you can't calculate SI, CSI but your 'count the letters of the recipe' is hysterical for its idiocy. Now get back to your parking lot, or i'll release the clowns. At least you're not sulking over your public shaming anymore, you compulsive liar.

     
  • At 7:11 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hi RichTard, liar, piece of shit intellectual coward.

    Actually SI of less than 500 bits can still be CSI and that doesn't have anything to do with the moronic question you asked.

    As for the recipe bit, well I have supported my case and as far as I know only ignorant evotards, like you, doubt its veracity.

    Too bad you can't make a case-> meaning all you can do is act like the mental midget you are.

    So what we have is RichTard Hughes, proud of its ignornce and very proud to let everyone know about it.

     
  • At 7:37 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Hi John Paul,
    Given that you've been saying the same things since 2005 at least to no effct (except back then you apparently were be a bit better at controlling your potty mouth) don't you think it's time to find a new routine?


    Are you denying you were John Paul?

    http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=6647;st=2190#entry186591

    It's clearly you @ evolutionfairytale in 2005. Do you deny that?

     
  • At 9:09 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM,

    I understand that you are too fucked up to support your position but attacking me with moronic spewage isn't going to refute anything I say.

    Perhaps I will find a new routine when evotards like you actually post something worth finding a new routine for.

     
  • At 9:31 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    He wasn't living in a aprking lot back in '05. What a creationist Muslim Joker.

    Still note you've never done any SI / CSI math, because it can't be done. "Design detectives" fail.

     
  • At 9:42 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Whatever RichTard- you are a delusional liar and an intellectual coward.

     
  • At 10:12 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "you are a delusional liar"

    Ask for me at empty parking lot!

    "and an intellectual coward."

    Says Joe / Jim / John.

     
  • At 10:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Whatever RichTard- you are a delusional liar and an intellectual coward.

    All proven...

     
  • At 10:34 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "you are a delusional liar"

    Ask for me at empty parking lot!

    "and an intellectual coward."

    Says Joe / Jim / John.

    You're a laughing stock Joe. You'll probably just create a new perosnality and start again. Isn't that what you always do?

     
  • At 10:38 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RicTard,

    Go clutch your pearl necklaces before they drip off.

    Of course evotards are going to laugh at me. That is all you can do because you sure as fuck can't support your position.

    Intellectual cowardice is your name...

     
  • At 10:53 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    You're a laughing stock Joe. You'll probably just create a new perosnality and start again. Isn't that what you always do?

    "Of course evotards are going to laugh at me"

    That's because your a ridiculous morphing wanna be bully who got found out. You deserve ridicule.

    "Intellectual cowardice is your name..."

    Actually my name is my *real* name - unlike chickenshits like you Joe / Jim / John.

     
  • At 11:14 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yeah, coming from a proven liar, imbecile and intellectual coward that means what?

    Coming from theimbecile who gave us:

    What Complex Specified Informations have you, calculated Joe / Jim / John Paul?

    Dude everyone who reads your posts laughs at you- well except your evotard butt buddies, who are all, when taken together, amount to basically one or two people anyway due to all the sock puppets they have to use.

    So go clutch your pearl necklaces and play in traffic...

     
  • At 11:28 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Wow! Weaopns grade projection:

    "Dude everyone who reads your posts laughs at you- well except your evotard butt buddies, who are all, when taken together, amount to basically one or two people anyway due to all the sock puppets they have to use."

    I'd say you're the king of socks, but you go further, making up whole fictional backstories. Do you still feel like a hero?

     
  • At 11:32 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Wow! Weapons grade bullshit lies!

    Does it make you feel better to lie? Is that it?

     
  • At 11:41 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Bathroom stall RichTard with its "strings" of "pearl necklaces" feels all manly and shit lying about people.

    Yeah man, you rock...

     
  • At 12:14 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Are you denying you were John Paul?

     
  • At 12:36 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM,

    I understand that you are too fucked up to support your position but attacking me with moronic spewage isn't going to refute anything I say.

    Perhaps I will find a new routine when evotards like you actually post something worth finding a new routine for.

     
  • At 12:59 PM, Blogger OM said…

    How is attacking you if I ask were you were a particular person?

    John Paul says all the same things as you, just in a more rational way. I guess the intervening years of getting nowhere must have taken their toll.

    It does not really matter if you answer the question or not. We all know you were! The inference is sound.

     
  • At 1:38 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Blah, blah, blah

    Obviously we are getting somewhere as I still have evotards like you shitting themselves as opposed to actually trying to stand up and defend their position.

    Geez just the words "critical analysis" has evotards throwing hissy fits. our position is so pathetic it can't stand up to critical analysis- only blind followers will do.

     
  • At 1:41 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Obviously we are getting somewhere as I still have evotards like you shitting themselves as opposed to actually trying to stand up and defend their position.

    My position is defended every time a new paper is published that could only have been written using an evolutionary viewpoint.

    And that happens every day.

    Geez just the words "critical analysis" has evotards throwing hissy fits. our position is so pathetic it can't stand up to critical analysis- only blind followers will do.

    In school you learn settled science. No more, no less. Later on, if you study hard, critical analysis is the default.

    If ID was subject to the sort of "critical analysis" that you want to apply to evolution it would be like tearing through wet tissue paper.

     
  • At 1:42 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Are you denying you were John Paul?

     
  • At 1:51 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    My position is defended every time a new paper is published that could only have been written using an evolutionary viewpoint.

    Liar and equivocator. Nice.

    OM:
    In school you learn settled science.

    If only. Your position can't even muster a testable hypothsis.

    OM:
    If ID was subject to the sort of "critical analysis" that you want to apply to evolution it would be like tearing through wet tissue paper.

    Nope. Ya see in order to gt to the design inference it means we tore through your position like wet tissue paper.

     
  • At 1:53 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    If only. Your position can't even muster a testable hypothsis.

    Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005).

    Ya see in order to gt to the design inference it means we tore through your position like wet tissue paper.

    Except that was a dream you had.

    Citation please.

     
  • At 1:56 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    If only. Your position can't even muster a testable hypothsis.

    But I thought that ID was not anti-evolution?

    By definition that means that you accept that at least some of evolution is true?

    As far as I can tell the only "problem" you have with evolution is the claim that variation is generated via random mutations.

    You seem to accept everything else.

    Is that the case?

     
  • At 2:00 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005).

    What the fuck does that have to do with blind, undirected chemical processes?

    You are an equivocating ignorant bitch.

     
  • At 2:03 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    What the fuck does that have to do with blind, undirected chemical processes?

    You asked what for a prediction of evolution.

    Now you have one. So the goalposts move.

    What a surprise.

    Your position can't even muster a testable hypothsis.,

    I just gave you one. And it was tested. And the result I gave you.

    Could "common design" have made a similar prediction?

     
  • At 2:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If only. Your position can't even muster a testable hypothsis.

    OM:
    But I thought that ID was not anti-evolution?

    It isn't you ignorant piece of shit.

    How many times do I have to explain it to you?

    As far as I can tell the only "problem" you have with evolution is the claim that variation is generated via random mutations.

    The problem I have is total lack of evidence.

    No evidence for blind,undirected chemical processes constructing useful, functioning multi-part systems.

     
  • At 2:06 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    It isn't you ignorant piece of shit.

    What part(s) of evolution do you accept then?

    How many times do I have to explain it to you?

    Once would be a start.

    The problem I have is total lack of evidence.

    Evidence for what? Evolution is an observed fact! The theory of Evolution attempts to explain that observed fact.

    No evidence for blind,undirected chemical processes constructing useful, functioning multi-part systems.

    No evidence for a designer making the systems in question, and lots of evidence for evolution creating such systems.

    If HIV was designed Joe what does that tell us about the designer?

     
  • At 2:06 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    You asked what for a prediction of evolution.

    No, I didn't you equivocating asshole.

    Man you are fucking dense and dishonest.

     
  • At 2:07 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2007/12/31/antony_flew_s_there_is_a_god_the_authors

     
  • At 2:20 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    What part(s) of evolution do you accept then?

    Only what science can demonstrate. And so far baraminology is looking good.

    How many times do I have to explain it to you?

    Once would be a start.

    We have passed that point.

    The problem I have is total lack of evidence.

    Evidence for what? Evolution is an observed fact! The theory of Evolution attempts to explain that observed fact.

    As I said:

    No evidence for blind,undirected chemical processes constructing useful, functioning multi-part systems.

    No evidence for a designer making the systems in question,

    Actually, there is. And it has been presented.

    and lots of evidence for evolution creating such systems.

    Liar and equivocator.

    If HIV was designed Joe what does that tell us about the designer?

    Who said HIV was designed?

     
  • At 4:37 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Who said HIV was designed?

    You are right. Perhaps you should demonstrate the Explanatory Filter and determine if it's designed or not.

     
  • At 4:43 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    And so far baraminology is looking good.

    Finally admitting you are a creationist then? Good stuff John Paul.

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

    Who said HIV was designed?

    OM:
    You are right.

    Yes you are an asshole.

    Perhaps you should demonstrate the Explanatory Filter and determine if it's designed or not.

    Go for it. But that isn't the point. The point is viruses could be designed, most likely are, but the bad shit iscaused by random errors introduced in both virus and hosts.

     
  • At 4:51 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And so far baraminology is looking good.

    Finally admitting you are a creationist then?

    I'm a creationist because the scientific data supports baraminology?

    Good stuff obtuse moron.

     
  • At 6:05 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Go for it. But that isn't the point. The point is viruses could be designed, most likely are, but the bad shit iscaused by random errors introduced in both virus and hosts.

    I can't because I don't believe that the Explanatory Filter can be used to determine design. I think it's bunk.

    But you believe it can be used. So why don't you find out if HIV is designed or not, even with the "errors".

    After all, a book with some printing errors is still designed. The same with HIV. The fact that there are a few "errors" should not preclude you being able to tell if it's designed or not.

    Seems like an excuse to me.

    The point is viruses could be designed, most likely are

    As you have a mechanism that you claim will determine that why don't you

    A) Calculate the CSI in HIV and see if it's over 500 bits and therefore designed.

    B) Use the Explanatory filter to determine if it's designed or not.

    Except you can't because you know it's possible but you'll never admit that.

     
  • At 6:47 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    I'm a creationist because the scientific data supports baraminology?

    What data? Citation please.

     
  • At 7:06 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    I can't because I don't believe that the Explanatory Filter can be used to determine design. I think it's bunk.

    Yet it the process the professionals use to detect design. That's bunk fer ya.

    But you believe it can be used. So why don't you find out if HIV is designed or not, even with the "errors".

    Pay me $20,000 and I will do your work fer ya.
    Why don't YOU ante up a demonsrate that blind, undirected chemical procsses cn poduce virus?

    I will tell you why- you are a fucking loser and an intellectual coward.

     
  • At 7:11 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I'm a creationist because the scientific data supports baraminology?

    What data?

    Genetics, embryology/ developmental biology, experimentation- well all of it.

    Tere in't a data wich demonstrates a prokaryote can evolve into anything but a prokaryote.

    The fact that offspring strongly resemble their parents- the fact that the beak of the finch does not change the bird (it's still a finch).

     
  • At 8:48 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    I'm a creationist

    Finally, some truth!

    How old is the earth Joe?

     
  • At 8:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The truth is that you are a fucking lowlife wanker.

     
  • At 4:03 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Tere in't a data wich demonstrates a prokaryote can evolve into anything but a prokaryote.

    Such a demonstration would take more time then either of us have available. Given that the oldest known fossilized prokaryotes were laid down approximately 3.5 billion years ago I think the "data" which "demonstrates" that they can evolve is all around us.

    There is a strong argument that Eukaryotes may have formed from endosymbiosis of multiple prokaryote ancestors.

    How does ID explain the origin of Eukaryotes?

    Oh, that's right "they were designed". Sorry, I forgot.

     
  • At 4:41 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    There in't a data wich demonstrates a prokaryote can evolve into anything but a prokaryote.

    OM:
    Such a demonstration would take more time then either of us have available.

    1- ow do you know how much time it would take?

    2- If all you have is to throw deep time at an issue then your position is not science.

    Given that the oldest known fossilized prokaryotes were laid down approximately 3.5 billion years ago I think the "data" which "demonstrates" that they can evolve is all around us.

    LoL! Is this how you reached your inference? How to do it

    Pathetic evotard.

    There is a strong argument that Eukaryotes may have formed from endosymbiosis of multiple prokaryote ancestors.

    No way to test the claim, hence it ain't science.

    How does ID explain the origin of Eukaryotes?

    I am sure I could make up some stupid story like the one you just told. Would that be good enough for you?

     
  • At 5:03 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    I am sure I could make up some stupid story like the one you just told. Would that be good enough for you?

    Yes! Go for it. Let's hear the ID take on the issue!

     
  • At 7:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You don't want ID's take- you want some made-up story.

    You seem to be unable to follow along...

     
  • At 10:40 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    You don't want ID's take- you want some made-up story.

    That would not be an excuse now would it?

    If you can, do it, if you can't then admit it. That's the honest thing to do.

     
  • At 11:19 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You don't want ID's take- you want some made-up story.

    OM:
    That would not be an excuse now would it?

    Facts aren't excuses.

    OM:
    If you can, do it, if you can't then admit it.

    Right, like I am supposed to drop everything and work on a made-up story for some anonymous piece of shit.

    Tell you what- you want me to do work for you then you need to start funding your projects.

    $50,000.00 US will do for this one.

     
  • At 12:52 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OK I will waive the fee- I have the story:

    In universe designed for scientific discovery it needs something to do the discovering.

    The eukaryotic cell plan is the only one that allows for organisms capable of that.

     
  • At 6:42 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    The eukaryotic cell plan is the only one that allows for organisms capable of that.

    You don't get to just declare it.

    Prove it!

     
  • At 7:59 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The eukaryotic cell plan is the only one that allows for organisms capable of that.

    OM:
    You don't get to just declare it.

    I am not justr declaring it. Science has demonstrated it. Just ask PZ Myers... (Mike Gene has posted on that very thing also)

     
  • At 8:17 AM, Blogger The whole truth said…

    Hey Joe, you're obviously fixated on ID, CSI, etc. Rather than spending so much time and effort trying to defend them and convince others to accept them, why don't you try to get some of the so-called ID researchers to actually calculate the ID, CSI, or whatever, in a whole bunch of organisms and non-living things in nature?

    I mean, seriously, wouldn't that be a lot better than beating your brains out with this blog and all your posts on UD? Just think, if they actually came up with something it might strengthen your position and arguments. About all they do is keep flogging the bacterial flagellum, as though it's the only thing worth talking about. That, and all the other mumbo jumbo that's alleged to be evidence of ID.

    IF there is evidence of ID, it will never be found by ranting on blogs or by proselytizing. The people who claim to be researchers should be doing actual research, and stop making lame excuses.

    Pressure them to do some actual research, instead of getting yourself all worked up about something that has no actual evidence. You're not doing yourself or ID any favors with your enraged ranting.

    If you really believe that ID is the real thing, work hard to get the necessary research done and the evidence found and verified. Just keep in mind that no evidence may ever be found, no evidence may exist, ID may be a fairy tale, and your position could be baseless.

    An obsession with ID, and the toll it takes on you, is unhealthy. There are a lot of other things in life that are much more rewarding and pleasurable.

     
  • At 9:03 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    the whole tard,

    Positive evidence for ID has been presented.

    I take it that you are too fucking ignorant to understand that.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home