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

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Kevin R McCarthy, aka OgreMKV, Forced to Misquote Me to Make his "Point"

-
Kevin R McCarthy has proved to be a low-life loser and the following is the evidence-

I said:
Why is it you have to attack ID with your ignorance when all it takes to refute ID is to actually step up and support your position with POSITIVE evidence?

And McCarthy changed it to:
Why is it you have to attack ID with your ignorance when all it takes to refute ID is to actually step up and support your position [evolution] with POSITIVE evidence?

The two are NOT the same. If Kevin was honest, which he isn't, he would have posted:
Why is it you have to attack ID with your ignorance when all it takes to refute ID is to actually step up and support your position [blind watchmaker evolution] with POSITIVE evidence?

However Kevin is a proven equivocating intellectual coward so he has to make shit up. Such is the lowlife of an evotard...

41 Comments:

  • At 11:50 AM, Blogger OM said…

    What if his position is in fact not "Blind Watchmaker Evolution"?

    Does he still have to support a position he does not in fact hold?

     
  • At 11:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Then he is at odds with the theory of evolution yet he argues that is agrees with it.

    Geez you are a fucking asshole.

     
  • At 11:56 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Nice strawman, Joe.

     
  • At 11:56 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Could you provide a citation to the primary literature that shows "Evolution" is defined as you claim it is?

     
  • At 11:58 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Nice strawman, Joe.

    What strawman?

     
  • At 11:58 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    om:
    Could you provide a citation to the primary literature that shows "Evolution" is defined as you claim it is?

    Already have

     
  • At 12:00 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    That position you want Ogre to hold, be he doesn't.

     
  • At 12:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    That position you want Ogre to hold, be he doesn't.

    Strange that he just debated that he does.

    Are you saying Ogre holds a position that is contrary to the theory of evolution?

     
  • At 12:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

  • At 12:15 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

  • At 6:21 PM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    Darwinists, lacking evidence, tend to use tactics, not facts, to "debate" and Ogre's quote-changing is a classic example. I noticed this one but did not comment on it at first. Ogre, simply copy-paste the quotes, bud. Your not-so-helpful replacement words change the key meaning of the quote.

    Do you or do you not believe in "blind watchmaker" evolution? It is either random evolution or intelligent evolution. Pick one and stop changing direct quotes.

     
  • At 6:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Ogre does not believe the adjective "blind watchmaker" is required as evolution means reducible to chemistry and physics (according to his secret definition of evolution).

     
  • At 7:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    “Darwinism tells us that, like all species, human beings arose from the working of blind, purposeless forces over eons of time” Jerry Coyne "Why Evolution Is True" (p. 224).

     
  • At 3:54 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    But not random forces, that's the key. And what you refuse to understand.

     
  • At 7:01 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Are you saying Ogre holds a position that is contrary to the theory of evolution?

    No, he holds a position that is contrary to the one that you claim he holds.

    I.E. you are lying.

     
  • At 7:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Are you saying Ogre holds a position that is contrary to the theory of evolution?

    OM:
    No, he holds a position that is contrary to the one that you claim he holds.

    And I claim he holds to the current theory of evolution.

    You are a moron.

     
  • At 8:04 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    And I claim he holds to the current theory of evolution.

    Which is what, exactly? That biological life arose randomly?

     
  • At 8:18 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And I claim he holds to the current theory of evolution.

    OM:
    Which is what, exactly?

    Exactly what the evolutionary biologists I referenced said it is.

    That biological life arose randomly?

    The theory of evolution doesn't say anything about how biological life arose.

    You are a moron.

     
  • At 8:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change — led to new species.- Dr Lynn Margulis

     
  • At 8:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Biological Evolution is essentially the process whereby new species arise from earlier species by accumulated changes. IU

     
  • At 9:17 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change — led to new species

    Why is it you treat the words of a single person as proving your point yet dismiss the thousands of other experts who make a point that you don't agree with?

    Seems to me you can build a case for anything if you are selective in the evidence you use, but it's a case built on sand.

     
  • At 9:17 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    Biological Evolution is essentially the process whereby new species arise from earlier species by accumulated changes.

    And those accumulative changes, are they random or filtered by selection?

     
  • At 4:56 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change — led to new species- Dr Lynn Margulis

    OM:
    Why is it you treat the words of a single person as proving your point yet dismiss the thousands of other experts who make a point that you don't agree with?

    I don't do that. You are a liar.

    I have provided more than one scientist and I do not dismiss anything any scientist can demonstrate.

    OM:
    Seems to me you can build a case for anything if you are selective in the evidence you use, but it's a case built on sand.

    And all you haveis a case built on false accusations.

    Strange how you cannot provide any rferences to support your claim.

     
  • At 4:59 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Biological Evolution is essentially the process whereby new species arise from earlier species by accumulated changes.

    OM:
    And those accumulative changes, are they random or filtered by selection?

    Again natural selection is only when differential reproction is due to heritable random variation.

    It dosn't account for much of anything.

    The changes accumulate via a variety of processes. Luck plays a big role as does cooperation.

    Selection leads to a wobbling stability- slight oscillations in a populations' traits. Nothing more.

     
  • At 7:06 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    Luck plays a big role as does cooperation.

    Citation please. Or is that another "science by gut feel" claim?

     
  • At 9:39 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Luck plays a big role as does cooperation.

    OM:
    Citation please.

    Read "What Evolution Is" for the luck part and then go ahead and look up cooperation. You will read about individuals helping others in their population as being the rule not the exception.

    IOW asshole go educate yourself.

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

    OM:
    But not random forces, that's the key. And what you refuse to understand.

    So you say but cannot support. That is what you refuse to understand.

     
  • At 6:34 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Selection is the opposite of random is it not?

     
  • At 8:19 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Selection is the opposite of random is it not?

    What "selection" are you talking about? Be specific.

     
  • At 11:58 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    What "selection" are you talking about? Be specific.

    How many types are there?

    For example, a coin sorter "selects" coins of specific sizes and groups them together.

    As opposed to a coin randomiser.

    So a group of organisations that have different locomotion speeds (due to a mutation in the leg muscle) can be "selected" for speed by predators. By definition the slowest are eaten, leaving the fastest to reproduce.

    So here locomotion speed is "selected" for by the environment the organisation finds itself in.

    Where is the randomness there Joe?

    Oh, you'll say, but equally the organism might have fallen down a hole and it's genes for speed lost. So what survives survives and selection is nonsense. While that's true, and no doubt happens, we're only concerned with the averages here.

     
  • At 1:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    How many types are there?

    1- Artificial selection

    2- Sexual selection

    3- Natural selection- which is really just the RESULT of three inputs, one which is depended on the other two, and all of which are either random or have a random component

    4- Then ther is plain luck as to why some organisms survive and cooperation.

    OM:
    For example, a coin sorter "selects" coins of specific sizes and groups them together.

    By design.

    OM:
    So a group of organisations that have different locomotion speeds (due to a mutation in the leg muscle) can be "selected" for speed by predators. By definition the slowest are eaten, leaving the fastest to reproduce.

    Or the fastest are the first to the ambush leaving the slower to reproduce. Or the fastest also have a mental defect that has them running to the predators.

    By definition I could make up anything, just as you are doing.

    So what is your REAL WORLD evidence for the non-randomness?

    If we have a result that is based on random inputs how can the output be non-random?

     
  • At 8:33 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    1- Artificial selection

    2- Sexual selection

    3- Natural selection- which is really just the RESULT of three inputs, one which is depended on the other two, and all of which are either random or have a random component

    4- Then ther is plain luck as to why some organisms survive and cooperation.


    Of these 4 which contributes most, on average, would you say?

    Or the fastest are the first to the ambush leaving the slower to reproduce. Or the fastest also have a mental defect that has them running to the predators.


    On average would you say that a Zebra on the savannah be selected for

    A) Speed
    B) Mental health

    By definition I could make up anything, just as you are doing.

    You can indeed, but if we examine the fossil record and see that average leg sizes increase which is then followed by average leg size increases by the predator then we can get a good idea of what is going on.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_arms_race

    If we have a result that is based on random inputs how can the output be non-random?

    That's an excellent question Joe. I think the beginning of true understanding is finally there.

    We consider an elementary discrete process which starts from purely random configuration and leads to well-ordered and stable state. Complete analytical solution to this problem is presented.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3785

    Alternatively, consider a population each with a different random mutation. The environment, whatever it happens to be, will allow some to reproduce and others won't be able to. Yet others will be able to reproduce but with less fecundity.

    Random inputs that create a non-random (i.e. correlated with the environment) output.

     
  • At 8:46 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    You can indeed, but if we examine the fossil record and see that average leg sizes increase which is then followed by average leg size increases by the predator then we can get a good idea of what is going on.

    Except you don't know if an accumulation of genetic accidents was the cause.

    If we have a result that is based on random inputs how can the output be non-random?

    OM:
    That's an excellent question Joe. I think the beginning of true understanding is finally there.

    We consider an elementary discrete process which starts from purely random configuration and leads to well-ordered and stable state. Complete analytical solution to this problem is presented.


    An EQUATION - random inputs for an equation you moron.

    Try again.

    Use an equation wth random inputs.

     
  • At 9:18 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Except you don't know if an accumulation of genetic accidents was the cause.

    And you don't know that it was not.

    What other causes could there be for such a situation? Did the designer have a fondness for Zebra? And if so did the designer make their legs incrementally longer? If the designer was so enamoured with Zebras then why make Lions chase them at all? Why go to all the bother of increasing Zebra leg size over thousands of years when the designer could just have moved them to somewhere with no Lions?

    An EQUATION - random inputs for an equation you moron.

    Ah, are you finally admitting that evolution can be modelled with equations? If not, what relevance does your request have to evolution?

     
  • At 9:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Except you don't know if an accumulation of genetic accidents was the cause.

    OM:
    And you don't know that it was not.

    No evidence for such a thing.

    OM:
    What other causes could there be for such a situation?

    Targeted search. Built-in responses to environmental cues.

    Did the designer have a fondness for Zebra?

    Not required.

    And if so did the designer make their legs incrementally longer?

    Not required.

    An EQUATION - random inputs for an equation you moron.

    Ah, are you finally admitting that evolution can be modelled with equations?

    Not even cose moron.

    As I said natural selection is the RESULT of three inputs- differential reproduction due to heritable variation.

    TRY to stay focused...

     
  • At 9:27 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    No evidence for such a thing.

    Then neither of us has any evidence do we? So you can't make any claims either way.

    Targeted search. Built-in responses to environmental cues.

    DNA for many organisms has been sequenced fully. Such pre-prepared information has never been found. Ever. Not once. Go find some, win a Nobel.


    Not required.


    How does Intelligent Design explain the various observed and documented evolutionary arms races.

    Not even cose moron.

    So what relevance does your request have to evolution?

     
  • At 10:25 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Then neither of us has any evidence do we?

    Strange how IDists keep presenting evidence for ID then.

    Targeted search. Built-in responses to environmental cues.

    OM:
    DNA for many organisms has been sequenced fully.

    Right and the more we know the better ID looks.

    OM:
    Such pre-prepared information has never been found.

    That is because moronic evolutionists are doing the looking. They are like drunks who dropped their keys and are looking for them under the street light even though they didn't drop them near the street light. They are looking under the light because that is the only place that is lit so they can see what they are doing.

    OM:
    How does Intelligent Design explain the various observed and documented evolutionary arms races.

    Built-in responses to environmental cues and/ or targeted searches.

    Accumulations of genetic accidents can't explain it- "it just happened" isn't an explanation.



    OM:
    So what relevance does your request have to evolution?

    There isn't any evidence that accumulations of genetic accidents can do what you say.

     
  • At 1:35 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Strange how IDists keep presenting evidence for ID then.

    Present it in a peer reviewed journal already.

    Right and the more we know the better ID looks.

    For example?

    That is because moronic evolutionists are doing the looking.

    Propose a research project then. What would *you* do? I'm sure the Biologic folk would be very interested indeed.

    Accumulations of genetic accidents can't explain it- "it just happened" isn't an explanation.

    Luckily that's just your straw man version of evolution.

    In fact, "it was designed" is the best explanation you have. Apart from for things like HIV and you don't know what to say there do you? It it was not designed then it must have evolved and we know that's not possible, but if it was designed......

    There isn't any evidence that accumulations of genetic accidents can do what you say.

    But ID is not anti-evolution is it? LOL. So what parts of evolution do you accept Joe? What are the limits of evolution? Where did HIV come from? What was HIV in the garden of Eden?

     
  • At 2:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Strange how IDists keep presenting evidence for ID then.

    OM:
    Present it in a peer reviewed journal already

    It is all in there. Transcription, translation, alternative splicng, proof-reading, error-correction- all in there alredy.

    Right and the more we know the better ID looks.

    OM:
    For example?

    All the things us listed, plus more.

    That is because moronic evolutionists are doing the looking.

    OM:
    Propose a research project then. What would *you* do? I'm sure the Biologic folk would be very interested indeed.

    What would YOU do?

    Accumulations of genetic accidents can't explain it- "it just happened" isn't an explanation.

    Luckily that's just your straw man version of evolution.

    Bullshit. Too bad you don't have any evidence to support your claim.

    OM:
    In fact, "it was designed" is the best explanation you have.

    And that alone means we are loking a a totally differnt type of biology. So it means a lot.

    OM:
    Apart from for things like HIV and you don't know what to say there do you?

    Giveu 150 years and all the resources evotards have and unlike you we will produce reults.

    OM:
    It it was not designed then it must have evolved and we know that's not possible, but if it was designed......

    Except, as I have proven, design is not anti-evolution. Populastions could have been designed to evolve. And that is a better explanation than accumulations of genetic accidents.

    There isn't any evidence that accumulations of genetic accidents can do what you say.

    OM:
    But ID is not anti-evolution is it?

    ID is not anti-evolution. ID is OK with DESIGNED TO EVOLVE-> EVOLUTION BY DESIGN. Just as I have been posting for years.

    OM:
    What are the limits of evolution?

    It appears that genetic accidents cannot accumulate in such a way as to give rise to useful, functional multi-part systems.

    IOW it appears very limited.

     
  • At 5:33 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    It appears that genetic accidents cannot accumulate in such a way as to give rise to useful, functional multi-part systems.

    So that means that the "harmless" virus that HIV evolved from was almost but not quite HIV then?

     
  • At 5:36 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    So that means that the "harmless" virus that HIV evolved from was almost but not quite HIV then?

    No, you moron. It means it didn't take the construction of new useful, functional multi-part systems to turn a harmless virus into a killer.

    What is you problem? It appears that you are unable to think.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home